|
|
|
|
|
Bihari refugees in Bangladesh
2 June 2008
In a debate in the House of Lords on 2 June 2008 Lord Trimble said,
'My Lords, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has said. I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, on having arranged for this debate. As noble Lords would expect, I convey an apology on behalf of my noble friend Lord Glentoran who very much hoped to be here but was unable to be. Noble Lords may say that the ensuing act of desperation on behalf of my party resulted in me taking on the role of presenting things in his place.
The Dhaka Initiative’s survey, in particular, is extremely interesting and illuminating. I have no doubt about the figures; although normally when one sees the results of a survey or an election with 98 per cent in one column and 1.5 per cent in another, one suspects that there is more to it than meets the eye. But I find this result credible in view of the history of the situation and the origin of the Biharis, whose forebears come from adjacent parts of India and moved in 1946 and 1947 during partition. Where they expected to have a refuge, they found themselves caught up in another issue and, consequently, now find themselves in a very difficult situation. The survey clearly shows that the Biharis want to integrate into Bangladesh. It is equally clear that the present circumstances mitigate against that happening.
What leapt out from the initiative report was the simple fact that we are dealing with a group of people who, ethnically, in terms of race and religion, are indistinguishable from the population among whom they are living. The distinction is made by cultural matters, particularly language. But, around language, a sense of community has persisted. Language in itself is not divisive, but it has become aligned with a political issue; namely, what has arisen out of the events of 1971. The years 1947-48 and 1971 may seem a long time ago, but they are not in terms of issues of this nature. Someone who was 20 years old in 1947 is only 81 today and no doubt will vividly relate to his children and grandchildren his memories of that time, while people who are now in their 40s and 50s can clearly remember 1971 and will tell their sons what happened. The sense of identity will be kept alive.
What is encouraging in the background is how the Bangladeshi courts have handled this issue. One must be glad to see the recent decision of the High Court in Bangladesh which states quite rightly that these people are citizens. Whatever may be the case with regard to individuals, one cannot deprive a community or a group of people of citizenship, any more than one could expel a group of citizens against their will. The court was clearly right to say that they are citizens. The question is whether they are going to be accorded all the rights of citizenship in the state. That is clearly the primary recommendation made by the initiative, and of course there is the hope that behind that recommendation lie the Bangladeshi courts, which one hopes will be able to ensure that the right of citizenship moves from being just a statement to a practical reality.
I am not in a position to know and I do not know whether the Minister is able to tell us what remedies exist in the Bangladeshi legal system to protect people against discrimination and disadvantage. If there are such remedies, the legal system may well be able to deal with the other aspects of the position of this community without the need for further intervention. It depends very much on the effectiveness of the local legal system as to whether those other disadvantages can be removed.
I note with interest the recommendations regarding UN-HABITAT’s partnership scheme for urban areas and I echo entirely the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord McNally, that it must be handled sensitively so as not to create the impression that this is in some way a privileged group of persons. That is very sensible.
Parenthetically, I noted earlier that the recommendations referred to a programme of the Bangladeshi Government to clear illegal slums, which I think is quite unfortunate. Legalising slums is the best way of dealing with them because giving people a legal interest in the property they occupy actually puts them on the first step of the ladder of economic development. They are given an asset against which money can be raised to finance businesses. Countries which have adopted this approach towards so-called illegal slums or shanties have seen that it works in development terms. However, I say that as an aside because it is not properly the subject of this debate. It just happened to touch on one of my hobby horses and I could not resist the temptation to parade it again.
I conclude, as I began, by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, on securing this debate. It is good to have the issue raised here and, like other noble Lords, I look forward to the contribution of the Minister.
To read the debate in full click here
2 June 2008
» Return to House of Lords section
|
|