Columns
Indifference to the plight of the desperate
View(s):When a country or a people are starved of basic compassion, profit alone cannot ensure stability. Equally, toleration of savagery in one form can only breed greater savagery in many other guises. This is the abiding lesson surely that all great religions teach us.
Greater scrutiny required of deportation policies
Even during the grim conflict years, Sri Lankans practised Buddhist, Christian, Islamic and Hindu teachings which prioritized humanity over every other concern. The evils that confronted us during war were endured as a matter of necessity. It is doubly ironic therefore that in the post-war years, we stand in the greatest danger of abandoning that humanity at an unbearable cost.
This is clearly reflected towards those who have sought asylum here from persecution in their own countries. During the past month, brutal deportation of Pakistani asylum seekers, many of whom belong to the Ahmadiyya Islamic sect or are Christians directly at risk in Pakistan have gone virtually unnoticed.
The deportations have continued despite the asylum seekers formally registering with the local office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Their treatment has been grossly inhumane with family members being separated and the old and the sick being detained without adequate access to medical care and counselling. Mothers torn from their children and grandfathers left to languish in solitary agony are only some of the stories.
Previous government assurances on record
In a laudable response to the frantic plea of one such Pakistani asylum seeker, the Court of Appeal issued interim relief this Friday suspending the Defence Ministry’s deportation. While the specific facts of that case are best left for the court’s determination, general state policy relating to deportations needs to be subjected to stricter public scrutiny.
One matter needs to be clarified. Official spokesmen have pontificated that Sri Lanka has not signed the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention and therefore, is not bound by the universally accepted legal principle of non-refoulement. This principle prohibits the return of refugees to a territory where they face danger. Even more shamefully, the various mouthpieces of the External Affairs Ministry contests the fact that non-refoulement is a principle of customary international law binding all nations regardless of whether a specific convention is signed.
These may be expeditious arguments. However, such airy disregard cannot be shown for previous assurances given by the Sri Lankan State itself to the United Nations that the principle of non-refoulement would be implemented to the fullest. These assurances of record cannot be easily brushed aside. Indeed, asylum seekers coming to this country have a legitimate expectation of this principle being followed to the letter in the context of such assurances.
Saying one thing and doing another
Ministry officials, (if they still read documents, that is) may do well therefore to acquaint themselves of the Government of Sri Lanka’s response to the Conclusions and Recommendations of the United Nations Committee Against Torture (CAT Committee) after consideration of Sri Lanka’s second periodic report (CAT/C/LKA/CO/2/Add. 1, 2005).
In this instance, the CAT Committee had recommended that Sri Lanka ‘review the Convention against Torture Act 22/94 and other relevant laws’ in order to ensure conformity with international standards relating to extradition, return and expulsion.
Responding to this concern, the State unequivocally promised in 2005 that the principle of non-refoulement would be followed. It also assured that ‘such obligations’ will be ensured under the ‘immigration law as well as through administrative measures.’ Yet State policy implemented against helpless Pakistani asylum seekers is in direct refutation thereof.
‘Riddled with human rights risks’
At one level, the government’s tendency to state one thing and do exactly the opposite should not unduly confound us. After all, the declaration by the Sri Lankan State before yet another United Nations committee years ago that impeachment proceedings of superior court judges would be amenable to judicial review did not stop the witch-hunt impeachment of a Chief Justice in 2013 while ruling party politicians shouted from the rooftops that the President and Parliament were not answerable to the judiciary.
From another perspective moreover, insult was further added to injury when the government claimed this week that its return of Pakistani asylum seekers was similar to the Australian government’s return of Sri Lankan ‘boat people.’ These are unfortunate comparisons to draw however given the increasing storm of international condemnation that Australia is courting in this regard.
A March 2014 report issued by the Melbourne based Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC) found that Australia’s policies towards asylum seekers were ‘riddled with human rights risks.’ It castigated ‘deeply flawed’ practices which return asylum seekers ‘without conducting proper assessments as to their refugee status or monitoring their safety on return.’ Sri Lanka’s treatment of Pakistani asylum seekers is much the same. Perhaps one may suggest a competition between the two States as to who can boast of the worst practices?
Abandonment of humaneness in general
But what should concern Sri Lankans specifically is the absence of humaneness not only in regard to asylum seekers but also commonly evidenced in policy spearheaded by the Ministry of Defence. Disturbingly this appears to have replaced the collective functioning of the government in major respects.
Thus we see the summary dismissal of Tamil civilians searching for their missing loved ones, the ruthless eviction of Colombo’s poor, the systematic targeting of religious and racial minorities and the silencing of dissenters. These are the expendables, reckoned to be of little consequence in an obscenely lopsided society.
On the one hand, we have the bloated patronage system which operates on the principle of pure profit and holds the democratic system in a stranglehold. On the other hand, we see culpable indifference on the part of many to the plight of the desperate, Sri Lankan or Pakistani as the case may be?
Is this the unenviable legacy to be handed down to future generations? Are we to be a silent party to this inhumane process?