A Silent Revolution and a Crisis

A silent revolution is in the making. Driven by the need to flee a perilous situation, or the promise of a better life elsewhere, millions of people are migrating to India or moving within India today, outside their area of origin. This is a growing phenomenon, and is increasingly more visible. However, migration is also under more attack than ever before. By assaulting and abusing the people of north Indian origin in the Mumbai city and elsewhere, we are killing the dreams, opportunities and aspirations of millions of people. Hate speeches and violent actions of regional chauvinist forces like the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena should shame our country. The problem is that governments and other actors are lacking the political will to tame the forces responsible for such hatred and violence, and are equally careless in turning the existing laws and standards into practical and meaningful measures, which respect, protect and promote migrants’ rights. Thus, a silent revolution is slipping into a silent human rights crisis.

Not only in India, elsewhere too, within countries and across regions, voluntary and involuntary population movements are on the rise, pushed by economic, social, environmental and political factors. Thus, for the first time in the history of humankind, those living in urban areas have outnumbered those in rural areas. In 2008, the world reaches an invisible but significant milestone: more than half its population, 3.3 billion people, will be living in urban areas. By 2030, this is expected to swell to almost 5 billion. Between 2000 and 2030, the world’s urban population is expected to increase by 72 per cent, while the built-up areas of cities of 100,000 people or more could increase by 175 per cent (based on the UNFPA ‘State of the World Population 2007 – Unleashing the Potential of Urban Growth’). It is further true that with higher levels of migration, more and more regions are confronted with issues of multiculturalism, and the challenges of integration, tolerance and diversity. In such moments, certain public statements arouse parochial and xenophobic prejudices, and incite attacks on migrant population at different times in different countries. However, this can only be challenged by focusing on the rule of law, and the human rights of migrants. Disbanding fear-mongers, dispelling fear, and countering misinformation are vital parts of protecting migrants’ rights.

We should be recognizing the benefits that migration is bringing to areas of origin in terms of not only remittances, but also new or improved skills and knowledge for those returning home.
(Photograph from Bhopal.net)

There is nothing illegal about north or south Indians migrating to any part of the country. It is entirely legal to move from one place to another to live and/or to work, either temporarily or permanently. We also already have a substantial body of laws which guarantee the specific rights of migrants. Possibly, in the whole ‘life-cycle’ of a migrant worker, filled with the decision to leave the place of origin, the migratory journey, wages and working conditions in the new place, and the likely return back, it is the poor worker who is more vulnerable to abuse, and migrant women and children most at risk. However, according to any government policies or migrant regulations, none of these migrants can be ever said to be slipping in and out of irregularities during the course of their journeys or while living and working in any state. Then why should they be left at the mercy of certain non-state actors and individuals, who are trying to force their own authority and regime in allowing people to enter or stay in a particular State? Why should not the authorities, for example in Mumbai, take action at an early stage, by putting in place effective measures to protect migrant people? Why should not the people, who are inciting violence and organizing attacks, be brought to justice?

In 2008, the world reaches an invisible but significant milestone: more than half its population, 3.3 billion people, will be living in urban areas. By 2030, this is expected to swell to almost 5 billion.  (Photograph Courtesy, ABCnews)

There are at least three disturbing trends that have emerged in our cities vis-à-vis the poor migrant workers. First, even when there are no violent attacks on migrant workers, in their everyday lives they are subjected to grave abuses regarding their civil-political, as well as economic, social and cultural rights. Their living places – the large slums – are the visible symbols of disparity, desperation and human rights abuse in cities. Sprawling urban spaces also bring crime and violence. The affluent middle and upper classes wall themselves in, and pay for private security, which itself becomes a source of increased violence and disrespect for human rights. And our policymakers continue to work against rural-urban migration, using tactics such as house destruction, forced displacement, eviction of squatters, and denial of services. The way our state and society function on a day-to-day basis towards migrant workers can also be held responsible for violence, aggression and attacks, which are big scale occurrences over long time periods.

Secondly, by our commission and omission, we are turning the poor survival migrants into stateless migrants. We know that serious abuses of many rights compel many migrants to leave their homes, and often their families, in search of safety, security and a sustainable livelihood. They move as part of a survival strategy. Desperately poor, they often take hard decisions for basic human security for themselves and their families. However, by the sheer callous and careless attitude of the state, they are often denied ration cards, electricity and water connections, address authentication, residence certificate and so on. Their children are at times school-less, as they lack the birth or residence certificate. They are virtually a stateless person in their place of work – a person who is not considered a citizen by the operation of law. Thus, we see them regularly being crushed either by Raj Thackeray or by the police, by bulldozers or by anti-social elements.

Thirdly, by all means, our state and society is benefiting from the migrant workers and their migration. Companies encourage migration because they get benefits from the economic value of the informal market sector. Others encourage contractors and sub-contractors to get them at construction sites, where mostly migrants are employed. Increasing professional and middle class populations want them for their daily services, not least to maintain their living and work infrastructure, and to find sufficient caregivers. Several sectors and states get massive ‘brain gain’ through the skilled migrants. States, in absence of any alternative thinking, continue with the formal-informal practices of obtaining the benefits of migrant remittances to their economies. However, when it comes to the migration management polices, none of these parties have anything to offer, except some old labor laws that are hardly implemented, and a political perception that a hard line on migration will solve the problems ranging from petty crime, over crowding to terrorism. Here, coupled with other conservative trends in our society, restrictive migration policies are often suggested that are mostly driven by narrow sentiments and preoccupations about the perceived threats that migrants allegedly pose to regional identity and national security.

We know that serious abuses of many rights compel many migrants to leave their homes, and often their families, in search of safety, security and a sustainable livelihood. They move as part of a survival strategy. Desperately poor, they often take hard decisions for basic human security for themselves and their families.
(Photograph from Bhopal.net)

We should be celebrating the contributions made by migrants to cities like Mumbai, Delhi and others, in terms of skills, resources and diversity. Whether low or highly skilled, migrants are bringing positive changes to our society, benefits which are not only economic, but also social and cultural. We should be recognizing the benefits that migration is bringing to areas of origin in terms of not only remittances, but also new or improved skills and knowledge for those returning home.

Instead of states taking a state-centric approach, and regions getting caught in competing regionalism, there must be a national level initiative, so that the competing state governments build a consensus on broad principles underlying a national scheme of ‘migration management’. An inter-state mechanism is required to achieve better management at regional and national levels through better inter-state cooperation. States cannot pick and choose which rights it will apply in case of migrant workers. Further, the current data on migrants, and on violations of their rights, remains quite limited. This lack of information, including the absence of a comprehensive and authoritative statistics, is an obstacle to policy development as well as to effective campaigning for the protection of migrants’ rights. In the present context, we need to know various things -- how many migrant workers are arrested, detained and attacked; the number of migrants engaged in low skilled employment sectors; the implementation of labor laws; which women and children have been victims of trafficking; the new non-state actors and the impact of their practices, etc.

Speaking about the rights of migrants against multiple odds of violence, exploitation and poverty is, in fact, not about looking for a ‘solution’ to migration. Migration is a phenomenon, not a problem, and it will grow further. There is a need to place the migrants at the centre of regional and urban policies and planning.

Comments

Wow!

gud article