Abstract
The chapter interrogates the consequences of nation-building projects of Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, especially how state constructed boundaries of belonging and citizenship. Theoretically, the chapter illustrates the claims of asylum states that exclude the rights of non-nationals, especially refugees, and the politics of marginalization within refugees’ countries of origin create the conditions for refugee flow that are later replicated in their countries of asylum. The chapter asserts that the lack of recognition of the asylum state goes a long way towards marginalizing non-citizens on the basis of the politics of belonging, rooted in notions of membership in the nation-state.
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
Notes
- 1.
In this chapter, I make a distinction between formal recognition as discussed in the literature on citizenship and claims of status made by non-citizens, i.e., refugee groups. Drawing largely from the literature on citizenship, I assert that the refugee claim to status is legitimate despite the predominance of a rights-based approach in the citizenship literature.
- 2.
Marshall discusses progressive rights in civil, economic and political spheres in capitalist societies.
- 3.
Shklar refers to individual’s standing in society.
- 4.
I am grateful to Linda Bosniak for proposing the problem of alienage. In this book I argue that state-centric views on citizenship rights determined issues of belonging.
- 5.
Zolberg (2000), Rubenstein and Adler (2000) in response to Bosniak’s Citizenship Denationalized, assert that there is a need to go beyond the notion of the state-dominated discourse on citizenship rights. The predominant position of state is challenged as a result of the movement of people across borders. Rubenstein and Adler (2000, 529) challenge the ‘singular notion of citizenship or a single legal status linking directly to the state’ and are a little cautious towards complete denationalized citizenship; instead they discuss trends away from a state-centred notion, in order to consider the impact of citizenship on the legal status of nationality.
- 6.
Bosniak (2000a, b) asserts that the globalized literature tends to view claims of ‘moving people’ as postnational, or ‘transnational’ rather than denationalized. She tends to view these claims as the denationalized rights of people. But Sassen differentiates between denationalized and post-national. According to Sassen, the foci of denationalized is “national-state,” whereas post-national is beyond “national-state.” But Sassen tends to differentiate between the denationalized too as conceptualized by Bosniak and as one put forward by her.
- 7.
Debate around this conflict has two dominant approaches: ‘radical universalist’ which talks for open border and civic republican perspective of ‘thick conception of citizenship’.
- 8.
By homeland, I mean an extension of refugees’ idea of ‘home’. Returnee-refugees do not hold similar views of homeland as that of rebel groups; rather, they view homeland as a safe place to be, within the country of origin.
- 9.
Based on data collected on Tamils and Chakma/Pahari refugee-returnees in Vavuniya, Mannar in Sri Lanka, and Khagracharri in Bangladesh, I assert the refugees’ decision to belong to ‘home’ is acute in the absence of status in asylum. But the idea of ‘home’ to refugees is dissimilar to insurgent views on homeland, such as Tamil Eelam or Jummaland; rather, it means the possibility to resume ‘day-to-day activities’.
- 10.
As stated in an interview in Chennai (India) July 2002, a higher official dealing with refugees stated, ‘we don’t understand the philosophy behind meanings of home etc., as long as refugees repatriate to country of origin we are alright with their decisions’.
- 11.
The same official in Chennai stated in an interview in July 2002, ‘these people need to go back to their “home”’. In this instance, ‘home’ was meant in the general sense of the term. Most of these officials were aware that the peace process in Sri Lanka was working well, which in the long run could facilitate the return of refugees as ‘the killing etc., has stopped’ in Sri Lanka.
- 12.
Xenos discusses how refugees can be used as pawns in struggles between states, e.g., the Haitian boat people. He refers to them as ‘strategic human flows’. The basis of these flows, Xenos maintains, ‘is the development of the state in terms of national identity and the social construction of a people within specific territory, the hyphenating of state within borders’. Dillon, on the other hand, discusses ‘the scandal of the refugees’ which is a reaction to being outside of being ‘other’ and part of ‘otherness’. Dillon highlights the ‘otherness’ of the refugees as being outside the fundamental ‘ontological determination of international politics and its exclusionary pressures’. See Michael Dillon, ‘The Scandal of the Refugees: Some Reflection on the “Inter” of International Relations and Continental Thought’ (private paper, copy with author as mentioned in Warner (1999), Dillon (1995)).
- 13.
- 14.
With the exception of Laura Hammond and Barbara Harell-Bond.
- 15.
See UN Doc. A/Res/38/121 (1983).
- 16.
UNHCR 1983 at 231.
- 17.
UN Doc. A/AC.96/815 (1993).
- 18.
According to the cessation clause, refugee status can be withdrawn when ‘situations have improved in the country of origin’ and every other factor contributing to refugee’s status ceases to exist. An interesting notion as in most situations, the timing of the withdrawal of status is crucial as it is meant to act as a deterrent and refugees are encouraged to return with slight improvement in country of origin.
- 19.
The cessation clause can be divided into two broad sets: the first set comprises four clauses that relate to a change in personal circumstances of the refugee, brought about by the refugee’s own act, and which results in the acquisition of national protection so that international protection is no longer necessary. The second set comprises clauses that relate to the change in the objective circumstances in connection with which the refugee has been recognized, so that international protection is no longer justified (the ceased circumstances’ cessation clause).
- 20.
This was the case during the repatriation of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in 1990–92 when the UNHCR was accused of working against the interest of refugees. Some local NGOs in Tamil Nadu (India) questioned the role of the UNHCR in ascertaining whether the refugees had voluntarily consented to go back. Most of the refugees were shown a video showing positive changes in Sri Lanka that encouraged refugees to consent; in reality, the returned refugees failed to notice any distinctive change in circumstances, as asserted by refugee groups residing in open relief camps in Pessalai, located north of Sri Lanka.
- 21.
Note that the following definition of ‘facilitating’ voluntary repatriation is categorically different from that used in the past when it characterized the UNHCR’s role as regards voluntary repatriation at large (a time, moreover when the major repatriation took place after clear-cut changes in the country of origin and the required assistance was of technical and financial nature).
- 22.
UNHCR Document ‘Protection Guidelines on Voluntary Repatriation’ (1993). (emphasis original) Note: facilitated repatriation can take place on the basis of either bilateral or tripartite agreements. Thus there is a slight difference between facilitating and promoting repatriation. The difference is more in the nature of assistance and whether the UNHCR has been instrumental in providing that exact nature of assistance. A case in point may be the Guatemalan refugees in Mexico.
- 23.
UNHCR Handbook. Voluntary Repatriation: International Protection (1996) (emphasis original). The UNHCR seems to confine its role in situations in which it considers repatriation premature to providing guidance and making its position known.
- 24.
Although there is no clear reference as to why the state has been given the responsibility and what the nature of the state is, it might be used in the context of liability and accountability for wrongful acts and their consequences, and it may be construed as such.
- 25.
Similarly, UNHCR Doc. 1993 (where these activities are discussed separately under the heading of ‘encouraging’ voluntary repatriation: a heading that serves to underline that encouragement of the solutions only takes place after its promotions have yielded the desired conditions ‘conducive to return’. The Handbook retains a similar emphasis by distinguishing between the promotions of solutions on the one hand and the promotion of voluntary repatriation on the other).
- 26.
In addition, the perception of the UNHCR speaking ‘on behalf of the international community as a whole, representing a universal, non-political, humanitarian concern for refugees’ could be adduced (Statement of the High Commissioner to the Third Committee of the General Assembly 1992; text printed in; 4 IJRL 1992 at 541). Recognition of this perception was formulated as a prerequisite for the UNHCR’s effectively extending international protection to refugees. An alternative characterization of the UNHCR: ‘the High Commissioner is the embodiment of international refugee humanitarianism and the father of the world’s refugee’.
- 27.
‘As a result of events occurring before January 1, 1951, and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is willing to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or; owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it’ (emphasis added).
- 28.
The 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees removed the ‘temporal and geographical limitations’ contained in the 1951 Convention. The Protocol was intended to broaden the basis of ‘refugee-hood’ criteria.
- 29.
See Article V of the 1969 OAU Convention Governing the Specific Problems of Refugees in Africa; see also CM/Res. 399 (XXIV) Resolution on Voluntary Repatriation of African Refugees of the OAU Council of Ministers, Addis-Ababa, 1975.
- 30.
Art. V (4).
- 31.
I follow Malkki’s (1995b) understanding on the difference between camp refugees and non-camp refugees.
- 32.
Though there were various Tamil groups involved with the government in Sri Lanka, the Liberation of Tamil Tigers Eelam emerged as one of many ‘effective’ mouth pieces of the Tamil cause.
- 33.
Parbattya Chattagram Jana Samhati Samiti (PCJSS) is a political organization of the 11 multilingual indigenous Pahari people of Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), in the southeastern part of Bangladesh. The organization, which was founded on 15 February 1972, espoused principles of nationalism, democracy, secularism, equality and social justice for the people of CHT.
References
Aga Khan, S. (1981). Study on human rights and massive exoduses. ECOSOC, Doc. E/CN4/1503. 1981.
Allen, T. (Ed.). (1996). In search of cool ground: War, flight and homecoming in northeast Africa. London: James Currey Ltd.
Allen, T., & Morsink, H. (Eds.). (1994). When refugees go home. Geneva: UNRISD.
Allen, T., & Turton, D. (1996). Introduction: In search of cool ground. In T. Allen (Ed.), Search of cool ground: War, flight and homecoming in Northeast Africa. London: James Curry Ltd.
Attiya, H. (1988, April). Interviews in Refugees. (52).
Bascom, J. (1994). The dynamics of refugee repatriation: The case of Eritrean in eastern Sudan. In W. T. Gould & A. M. Findlay (Eds.), Population migration and the changing world Drder (pp. 225–248). New York: Wiley.
Benhabib, S. (2004). The rights of others: Aliens, residents and citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bosniak, L. (2000a). Citizenship denationalized (the state of citizenship symposium). Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 7(2), 447–508.
Bosniak, L. (2000b). Universal citizenship and the problem of alienage. Northwestern University Law Review, 94(3), 963–982.
Brubaker, R. (1998). Ethnic and nationalist violence. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 423–452.
Chimni, B. (2003). Post-conflict peace building and the return of refugees: Concepts, practices and institutions. In N. Edward & J. V. Selm (Eds.), Refugees and forced displacement international security human vulnerability and the state (pp. 195–221). United Nation Press.
Coles, G. (1985). Voluntary repatriation: A background study. Paper prepared for the Round Table on Voluntary Repatriation. International Institute of Humanitarian Law/UNHCR: San Remo, Italy.
Coles, G. (1987). The human rights approach to the solution of the refugee problem: A theoretical and practical enquiry. In A. Nash (Ed.), Human rights and the protection of refugees under international law (pp. 195–222). Montreal: Canadian Human Rights Foundation.
Coles, G. (1989). Approaching the refugee problem today. In G. Loescher & L. Monahan (Eds.), Refugees and international relations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Coles, G. (1992). Appeal to donor governments. Asmara: Commission for Eritrean Refugee Affairs, Provisional Government of Eritrea.
Coles, G. (1992b). Approaches and strategies in the repatriation of Eritrean refugees. Asmara: Provisional Government of Eritrea.
Corrigan, P., & Sayer, D. (1985). The great arch: English state formation as cultural revolution. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Dahrendorf, R. (1974). Citizenship and beyond: The social dynamics of an idea. Social Research, 41(4), 673–701.
Das, V., & Poole, D. (Eds.). (2004). Anthropology in the margins of the state. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
DaVanzo, J. (1981). Repeat migration, information costs, and location-specific capital. Population and Environment, 4(1), 44–73.
Desbarats, J. (1985). Policy influences on refugee settlement patterns. Kroeber Society Anthropological Papers, 65–66, 49–63.
Dillon, M. (1995). The asylum seeker and the stranger: An other politics, hospitality and justice. Paper presented in International Studies Association Conference, Chicago.
Dillon, M. (1999). The scandal of the refugee: Some reflections on the ‘Inter’ of international relations and continental thought. In D. Campbell & M. J. Shapiro (Eds.), Moral spaces: Rethinking ethics and world politics. University of Minnesota Press.
Evans, P., Ruesschemeyer, D., & Skocpol, T. (Eds.). (1985). Bringing the state back. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin-Gill, G. S. (1996). The refugee in international law (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hammer, T. (1986). Citizenship: Membership of a nation and of a state. International Migration, 24, 735–747.
Hammer, T. (1990). International migration, citizenship and democracy. Aldershot: Gower.
Hammond, L. (1999). Examining the discourse of repatriation: Towards a more proactive theory of return migration. In R. Black & K. Koser (Eds.), The end of the refugee cycle? Refugee repatriation and reconstruction (pp. 227–244). New York: Berghahn Books.
Hansen, T. B., & Stepputat, F. (Eds.). (2001). States of imagination: Ethnographic explorations of the postcolonial state. Durham N.C.: Duke University Press.
Harrell-Bond, B. (1989). Repatriation: Under what circumstances is it the most desirable solution for refugees? An agenda for research. African Studies Review, 1, 41–69.
Hathaway, J. (1997). The meaning of repatriation. International Journal of Refugee Law, 9(4), 551–558.
Hathaway, J. (2005). The rights of refugees under international law. Cambridge University Press.
Herbst, J. (2000). States and power in Africa: Comparative lessons in authority and control. In J. L. Synder, M. Trachtenberg, & F. Zakaria (Eds.), International history and politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Holloway, D., & Stedman, S. J. (2002). Civil wars and state-building in Africa and Eurasia. In M. R. Beissinger & C. Young (Eds.), Beyond state crisis? Postcolonial Africa and Post-Soviet Eurasia in comparative perspective (pp. 161–189). Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson Centre Press.
Karadawi, A. (1987). The problem of urban refugees in Sudan. In J. Rogge (Ed.), Refugees: A third world dilemma (pp. 115–129). Totowa: Rowman and Littlefield.
Karadawi, A. (1999). Refugee policy in Sudan 1967–1984. New York: Berghahn Books.
Kibreab, G. (1987). Refugees and development in Africa: The case of Eritrea. Trenton: The Red Sea Press.
Kibreab, G. (1999). Revisiting the debate on people, place identity and displacement. Journal of Refugee Studies, 12, 384–411.
Kibreab, G. (2003). Citizenship rights and repatriation of refugees. International Migration Review, 37, 24–74.
Knop, K. (2002). Diversity and self-determination in international law. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kolenic, P. (1974). African refugees: Characteristics and patterns of movement. Ohio: Ohio University.
Krohn-Hansen, C., & Nustad, K. G. (2005). State formation: Anthropological perspective. Ann Arbor: Pluto Express.
Kunz, E. (1973). The refugee in flight: Kinetic models and forms of displacement. International Migration Review, 7, 125–146.
Kunz, E. (1981). Exile and resettlement: Refugee theory. International Migration Review, 15(1), 42–51.
Kymlicka, W., & Norman, W. (1994). Return of the citizen: A survey of recent work on citizenship theory. Ethics, 104(2), 352–381.
Larkin, M. A., Cuny, F., & Stein, S. (Eds.). (1992). Repatriation under conflict in Central America. Washington, DC: Georgetown University, Centre for Immigration Policy and Refugee Assistance, 1991.
Malkki, L. (1992). National geographic: The rooting of peoples and the territorialization of national identity among scholars and refugees. Cultural Anthropology, 7(1), 24–44.
Malkki, L. (1995a). Purity and exile: Violence, memory and national cosmology among Hutu refugees in Tanzania. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Malkki, L. (1995b). Refugees and exile: From ‘refugee studies’ to the national order of things. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 495–523.
Mann, M. (1986). The sources of power: A history of power from the beginning to A.D. 1760. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marshall, T. (1950). Citizenship and social class and other essays. Cambridge: University Press.
Midgal, J. (1988). Strong societies and weak states: State-society relations and state capabilities in the Third World. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Minogue, K. (1995). Two concepts of citizenship. In A. L. Dragovic (Ed.), Citizenship east and west. London: Routledge.
Olwig, K. F. (1998). Contesting homes: Home-making and the making of anthropology. In N. Rapport & A. Dawson (Eds.), Migrants of identity: Perceptions of home in a world in movement (pp. 225–236). Oxford: Berg.
Preston, R. (Ed.). (1993). The integration of returned exiles, former combatants and other war-affected namibians. Windhoek: Namibia Institute for Social and Economic Research.
Ranger, T. (1994). Studying repatriation as a part of African social history. In T. Allen & H. Morsink (Eds.), When refugees go home. Geneva: UNRISD.
Rapport, N., & Dawson, A. (1998). Migrants of identity: Perceptions of home in a world of movement. Oxford: Oxford International Publishers.
Rogge, J. (1977). A geography of refugees: Some illustrations from Africa. The Professional Geographer, 24(2), 186–193.
Rogge, J. (1985). Too many too long: Sudan’s twenty year refugee dilemma. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allenheld.
Rogge, J. (1991). Repatriation of refugees: A not-so-simple ‘optimum’ solution. Paper presented at the Symposium on Social and Economic Aspects of Mass Voluntary Return of Refugees From One African Country to Another. Harare, Zimbabwe.
Rogge, J. (1994). Repatriation of refugee: Not so simple ‘optimum solution’. In T. Allen & H. Morsink (Eds.), When refugees go home (pp. 14–49). Trenton: Africa World Press.
Rogge, J., & Akol, J. (1989). Repatriation: Its role in resolving Africa’s refugee dilemma. International Migration Review, 22(2), 184–200.
Rubenstein, K., & Adler, D. (2000). International citizenship: The future of nationality in a globalised world. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 7(4), 519–548.
Sassen, S. (1996). Losing control? Sovereingnty in the an age globalization. New York: Columbia University Press.
Sassen, S. (1999). Guest and aliens. New York: The New Press.
Sassen, S. (2000). Democracy, citizenship and the global city. New York: Routledge.
Shklar, J. N. (1991). American citizenship: The quest for inclusion. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Silverman, M. (1992). Deconstructing the nation: Immigration, racism and citizenship in modern France. London: Routledge.
Skocpol, T. (1979). States and social revolutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, A. D. (1983). Theories of nationalism (2nd ed.). Holmes & Meier.
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.
Stein, B., Cuny, F., & Reed, P. (Eds.). (1995). Refugee repatriation during conflict: A new conventional wisdom. Dallas: The Centre for the Study of Societies in Crisis.
Steinmetz, G. (1999). Introduction: Culture and the state. In G. Steinmetz (Ed.), State/culture state formation after the culture turn (pp. 1–51). London: Cornell University Press.
Stepputat, F. (1999). Repatriation and everyday forms of state formation in Guatemala. In R. Black & K. Koser (Eds.), The end of refugee cycle? Refugee repatriation and reconstruction (pp. 210–227). New York: Berghahn Books.
Tilly, C. (1975). The formation of national states in Western Europe. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Tilly, C. (1985). War making and state making as organized crime. In Peter Evans et al. (Eds.), In Bringing the State Back (pp. 169–191). Cambridge University Press.
Uddin, N. (2010). Politics of cultural difference: Identity and marginality in the Chittagong hill tracts of Bangladesh. South Asian Survey, 17(2), 283–294.
UNHCR. (1996). Handbook: Voluntary repatriation international protection. Geneva.
UNHCR Document. (1993). Protection guidelines on voluntary repatriation.
Walzer, M. (1995). Education, democratic citizenship and multiculturalism. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 29(2), 181–189.
Warner, D. (1992). We are all refugees. International Journal of Refugee Law, 4(3), 365–372.
Warner, D. (1994). Voluntary repatriation and the meaning of return to home: A critique of liberal mathematics. Journal of Refugee Studies, 7, 160–174.
Warner, D. (1999). Refugee state and state protection. In F. Nicholson & P. Twomey (Eds.), Refugee rights and realities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wolff, S. (2001). German expellee organizations between ‘homeland’ and ‘at home’: A case study of the politics of belonging. Refuge, 20, 52–65.
Xenos, N. (1996). Refugees: The modern condition. In M. J. Shapiro & H. R. Alker (Eds.), Challenging boundaries global flows, territorial identities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Zieck, M. (1999). UNHCR and voluntary repatriation of refugees: A legal analysis. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Zieck, M. (2005). Vanishing points of the refugee law regime. Response to James Hathaway. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 20(2), 217–284.
Zolberg, A. R. (2000). The dawn of cosmopolitan denizenship. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 7(2), 511–518.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chowdhory, N. (2018). The Idea of ‘Belonging’ and Citizenship Among Refugees: Some Theoretical Considerations. In: Refugees, Citizenship and Belonging in South Asia. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0197-1_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0197-1_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-0196-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-0197-1
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)