CRUELTY AS POLICY

UK'S Rwanda law for asylum seekers violates humanitarian principles, smacks of bad governance

EEvery month for the last 10 months, refugees and asylum- seekers have died trying to get into the UK. Desperate to escape existential dangers — crippling poverty, political persecution, war and climate change — the refugees are preyed on by agents and make the journey across the treacherous waters of the English Channel on small boats. Hours after the Rishi Sunak government's Rwanda Bill was passed by the British parliament, five people including one child died on such a crossing. PM Sunak said “[ The incident] is just a reminder of why my plan is so important... We want to prevent people making these very dangerous crossings.” There is little doubt that the UK, like much of the developed world, is facing an influx of undocumented migrants. So far this year, the number of people trying to make it into the country has grown by 25 per cent over the same period last year. However, there is a cruel irony in using the suffering of those who will be worst affected by the law to defend it.

The Bill has its origins in a policy formulated by former PM Boris Johnson in 2022, under which the UK government could deport some asylum- seekers to Rwanda, where they will be assessed for permanent resettlement. The British government has reportedly paid close to 300 million pounds to the Rwandan government for this scheme. The UK supreme court, however, struck down the policy in light of Rwanda's poor human rights record. The Safety of Rwanda Bill is meant to address “the Court’s concerns and will allow Parliament to confirm the status of the Republic of Rwanda as a safe third country”. The UNHCR has asserted that “Such arrangements... are contrary to the letter and spirit of the Refugee Convention.”

Setting aside the legal and moral issues, the Rwanda Bill is bad policy. A relatively small number of undocumented migrants coming into the UK will fall under the law's ambit. Those willing to risk their lives to escape their homes — and those that exploit them — are unlikely to be deterred. At an initial cost of 1.8 million pounds per asylum- seeker, scaling the policy is not financially viable. Then there's the fact that many, if not most, of the prospective deportees will likely approach the British courts for relief, burdening the system and exchequer. What the UK — like so many other developed countries — needs is a streamlined process for asylum and immigration. As a former Chancellor of the Exchequer and investment banker, Sunak likely knows this. He must realise xenophobia is a poor basis for policy.

OVER THE LAST couple of days, the political discourse is heating up. Prime Minister Narendra Modi recalled a statement by former PM Manmohan Singh in which he called for the first claim of minorities especially, Muslims, over national resources. From the reversal of the progressive Shah Bano verdict to acquiring the unique distinction of being among the first countries to ban The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie — Congress has never shied away from brazen appeasement.

After tendering his resignation from the Nehru cabinet on September 27, 1951, B R Ambedkar said in Parliament: “… why is no relief granted to the Scheduled Castes? Compare the concern the government shows over safeguarding the Muslims. The Prime Minister’s whole time is devoted to the protection of Muslims… what I want to know is, are the Muslims the only people who need protection? Are the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Indian Christians not in need of protection? What concern has he shown for these communities? So far as I know, none and yet these are the communities which need far more care and attention than the Muslims.”

Manmohan Singh's statement in 2006, then, must not be viewed in isolation. Neerja Chowdhury writes in How Prime Ministers Decide: “Rajiv Gandhi had thought that the Muslim Women’s Bill would satisfy the Muslims and the opening of the locks on the grille would make the Hindus happy.” The surreptitious art of trying to gain political lever

Minority appeasement and social justice cannot coexist. Period. In the 2009 general elections, Congress went to the extent of promising nationwide reservation for Muslims in jobs and education. There is a constitutional basis and a history of social marginalisation that provides a moral justification for reservation for socially marginalised sections like SCS, STS and the OBCS.