Article 1 (3) of the Charter of the United Nations^[1] states that one of the key objectives of the United nations is to promote and encourage respect for human rights and certain fundamental freedoms for all without making any distinctions on the basis of race, sex, language or religion. With the inception of the UDHR^[2], ICCPR^[3], ICESCR^[4], Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action ^[5] etc this idea of inalienable international human rights might seem exceptionally straight forward however, it becomes extremely complicated as soon as one attempts to put this into practice, specially when the issues revolves around the twelve internationally recognised ‘Vulnerable Groups’^[6]. Despite human rights having found centrality in legal and political debates they still remain an abstract concept for many like individuals belonging to minority groups and refugees.

While the term ‘Minorities’ in a numerical sense refers to communities with a lower population, in a socio-legal sense it describes those groups which have historically been discriminated against by the ‘majority’ due to their differences. Historically, states have tried to establish and enhance their political legitimacy through strategies like assimilation and integration which aims to create a homogeneous culture within a state. Policies that promote assimilation are aimed at persuading, encouraging or forcing all citizens to adopt a uniform set of cultural values and norms whereas policies enacted by the state which promote integration insist that the public culture be restricted to a common national pattern, while all the cultures which are ‘non-national’ are to be relegated to the private sphere. This often leads to erasure of minority identities that can be well understood through the perturbing reality faced by the Native American community (the original inhabitants of the land driven out by war) and to the Black community (brought as slaves from Africa) in the United States. These communities despite the existence of the 14th amendment^[7] have not only borne the brunt of discriminatory practices but have been forced to assimilate into the american society by having their unique histories removed from their society by making educational institutes teach history only from the perspectives of the majority groups, criticising their languages and dialect and often mocking and erasing their cultural practices take for example the 1992 movie ‘The Last of the Mohicans’ which deemed an entire native american tribe ‘extinct’ despite the fact that the Mohicans are nowhere near extinct. These kinds of portrayals in popular media are not a thing of the past with popular tv series like the 2011 ‘ Two Broke Girls’ playing up on racial stereotypes in the name of comedy. Unfortunately these trends can be found in media content marketed towards kids, these include the likes of ‘Peter Pan’ (1953) which has been criticized for the way it portrays Native American characters with highly stereotypical songs like “What Made The Red Man Red,” and for the way white characters appropriate the native culture. Thus, despite the progressive laws enacted by numerous states like the USA, rights of minorities have rarely been actualized as these communities continue to be marginalised and appropriated for profits by the majority.

A similar situation can be found upon analysing the condition of the people belonging to the Torres Strait Islander community who are the original owners and custodians of lands and waters of Australia but have faced a significant amount of discrimination in their own land following the advent of colonialism in the continent. However, despite the similarities observed in the case of native Americans and the Torres Strait Islander, the Australian government has dealt with the situation in a better way with almost all state governments of Australia having apologised for the atrocities committed by the state towards the native population of the land and have taken firm steps to ensure that reparations are made.

The Indian state is one of the most diverse nation-states in the world.With a population of approximately 1.21 billion people (Census of India 2011 (Provisional)), It currently possesses the second largest national population in the world. This population is composed of people who speak about 1,632 different languages. As many as eighteen of these languages have been officially recognised and placed under the 8th Schedule of the Constitution, thus guaranteeing their legal status. In terms of religion, about 80.5% of the population are Hindus, about 13.4% of the population are Muslims, which makes India the third largest Muslim country in the world after Indonesia and Pakistan. The other major religious communities are Christians (2.3%), Sikhs (1.9%), Buddhists (0.8%) and Jains (0.4%). By international standards, India has very strong constitutional protections offered to minorities. However, this doesn’t exclude India from committing numerous Human Rights violations Like most nations India’s problems have been more in the sphere of implementation and practice rather than laws or principles. With communal riots having been fought in almost all states of the nation, take for example the anti-Sikh riots of Delhi which took place in 1984 during the regime of the Congress party or the unprecedented scale and spread of anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat in the year 2002 which took place under the regime of the Bhartiya Janata Party government. This is reflected in a report published by the United States Commission for International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) ^[8] which designates India as being a country of particular concern when it comes to minority rights because of the extent and nature of violations of religious freedoms that the government tolerates and even promotes. The report goes on to state that the multicultural identity Indians proudly showcase has been threatened time and again by an exclusionary conception of national identity based on religion. Further, this report attributes the responsibility of increase in the degree of communal violence in the nation and anti-minority wave which has engulfed India to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Similar concerns have been echoed by several other international organizations, including the United Nations, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch.

Many minorities, perturbed by the way they are treated, flee their countries to avoid persecution, war, human rights violations and other events which disturb public order. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reports that over 17 million refugees can be presently found across the world^[9]. According to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees^[10], the legal definition for a refugee is "…a person who is outside his country of origin and cannot return to it owing to a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, or political opinion." The condition of these refugees creates a disturbing contrast between the world portrayed in legal documents and the one which exists outside it. The decline of the Cold War has brought about significant changes to the context in which conversations around refugee protection are addressed. Governments across the globe, especially the ones governing ‘the developed western world’ such as the government of the United States, have been found treating refugees attempting to seek asylum as unauthorized and unwanted migrants. Foreign policies have observed a decline providing assistance to the refugee population this is despite the globalisation found in today’s world.

In Asia, a UN-sponsored Comprehensive Plan of Action has been established in order to control the outflow of Vietnamese and Laotian asylum refugees; this plan implements a screening process for attaining a refugee status in the continent. This has led to over 100,000 Vietnamese refugees being languished in inhumane conditions, confined within congested and detention centres. Most of these individuals are statistically likely to be denied asylum and forced to return to the harsh conditions they escaped. This plan of action is of the view that individualized inquiries for seeking a refugee status is an extremely Western perspective which cannot be implemented in the existing asian systems.

India has not signed the 1951 UN Refugee Convention of 1951 or the 1967 Protocol additional to it, which are measures taken by International legal bodies to protect refugees and ascertain certain human rights to them. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) India doesn’t have a framework set to offer protection to refugees at the national level. However, respecting the norms set in place by International law it continues to grant asylum to a large number of refugees from neighbouring states like Afghanistan and Myanmar. The laws which govern the status of refugees in India are - the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939; Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Passport Act, 1967. The Centre is trying to amend the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the controversial 2019 amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1955 which holds that illegal migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, who are religious minorities in those countries — Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, Jains and Parsis are to be granted Indian citizenship. This amendment following the ideology of the governing Bharatiya Janata Party excludes migrants who belong to the Islamic faith. This policy however, has received major backlash from the citizens of India who have actively led protests against this law which they deem anti-secular, unconstitutional and archaic.

Despite being an act which goes against the multicultural spirit of India the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 helps highlight the vicious cycle of human rights violations which exist between minority groups and refugees. When the members of the minority groups like the LGBTQ community in Yemen^[11] or Iran^[12] who can face the death penalty because of their identity escape arbitrary state policies and unjust prosecution in hopes of a better life seek refuge in nation like the USA are forced into a inhuman life in congested refugee camps and if they somehow escape this fate and to get full citezenship they become a part of the ethnic minority in these countries and continue to face the kind of discrimination they tried to avoid.

Thus, despite the ever increasing pace of reforms in the domain of Human Rights across the world it is arbitrary to believe that the legal provisions enacted are reflected in the world outside the black and white pages with numerous vulnerable sectors of society like refugees, minorities be it religious, ethenic, sexual or racial etc facing the worst the human race has to offer everyday. This can be illustrated through the fact that these groups are often forced to forget their identities to assimilate in society. they are made the punchline of numerous derogatory jokes while those perpetrating such acts against them get to mock, appropriate and destroy their culture, lifestyle and identity. Despite the “inalienable” nature of human rights, they are deemed to be easily disposable with a significant portion of society not getting the benefits of these rights. This disturbing reality of the condition of human rights in today’s world can perhaps, be best understood in the words of George Orwell, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Refrences

^[1] U.N. Charter art. 1(3) .G.A. Res. 62/228, ¶ 35, U.N. Doc. A/RES/62/228 (April. 19, 2022)

^[2] UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III), available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3712c.html [accessed 19 April 2020]

^[3] UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3aa0.html [accessed 19 April 2020]

^[4] UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 993, p. 3, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b36c0.html [accessed 19 April 2020]

^[5] UN General Assembly, Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, 12 July 1993, A/CONF.157/23, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b39ec.html [accessed 19 April 2020]

^[6] THE HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION OF VULNERABLE GROUPS, ICELANDIC HUMAN RIGHTS CENTRE

^[7] U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 2.

^[8] Harrison Akins, Policy Analyst, The Citizenship (Amendment) Act in India UNITED STATES COMMISSION on INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

^[9]Ibid

^[10] UN General Assembly, Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 189, p. 137, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3be01b964.html [accessed 20 April 2020]

^[11] The Yemen penal code differentiates between three situations: adultery, sodomy, and sex between females. Adultery is punishable by death by stoning for the married party, male or female. The assumption here is that the act is a heterosexual act. Sodomy is punishable by death by stoning for the married party, male or female. Therefore this applies for consensual same-sex sexual acts where one or both of those involved are married. Sex between women is not punishable by death. The method of execution in Yemen can be beheading or firing squad, but in general it is by firing squad.

^[12] The Iranian penal code makes particular types of same-sex sexual relations capital offences – consensual “sodomy” between men (Articles 110 and 111); same-sex sexual relations between men without penetration (tafhiz) for the fourth time (Article 121), having been punished for each previous offence, and in Article 131, for lesbianism for the fourth time, having been punished for each previous offence. In addition, false accusation of “sodomy” for a fourth time, having been punished for each previous offence, is also a capital crime. The punishment for nonpenetrative sex between men and for lesbianism, on first three occasions, is flogging, which constitutes torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The laws are also discriminatory on the basis of religion, in that if a non-Muslim is prosecuted for having consensual sex with a Muslim, the non-Muslim gets the death penalty straight away.