In many other countries, the treatment of foreigners is still largely a political decision, but refugees have been granted legal rights. Under international law, the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951), read with its 1967 Protocol of 1967, defines a refugee as someone who ‘owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion’ is outside her country of nationality and cannot return. There can be no doubt that Taslima was persecuted in Bangladesh for her political opinion and therefore qualifies as a refugee under this definition. As such, she can avail the rights of a refugee outlined in the convention in any of the member-states. One of the most basic of these rights is the ‘right to non-refoulement’ in that forbids the expulsion or return of a refugee to a state where her life or freedom will be endangered on account of her race, political opinion etc. Article 26 of the convention guarantees a refugee the freedom to move and reside freely within the territory of the country of refuge.

In 1951, India rightly refused to sign the convention. The application of the original convention was largely limited to ‘events occurring before 1 January 1951’ in Europe. It was not designed to handle the post-partition mass-movement of refugees that took place in the subcontinent and therefore had little practical value for India. However, the 1967 protocol to the convention removed this limitation and its adoption would have been an opportune moment for India to join the convention. Regrettably, India continues to be a non-member state. But this does not necessarily imply that Taslima has no legal rights in India.

... contd.