Joint Research Agenda

Transcription

1 Jint Research Agenda EURASIA Net Deliverable N.5 prepared by Mahanirban Calcutta Research Grup and Brunel University EURASIA Net Cnsrtium Accademia Eurpea per la ricerca applicata ed il perfezinament prfessinale Blzan/Bzen Brunel University West Lndn Jhann Wlfgang Gethe Universität Frankfurt am Main Mahanirban Calcutta Research Grup Suth Asian Frum fr Human Rights Demcratic Cmmissin f Human Develpment University f Dhaka EURAC BrUni UniFr MCRG SAFHR DCHD UniDh 1

2 Cntents 1. Intrductin Cmparative experiences f reginal cperatin Intrductry remarks Cmmn reginal issues Migratin and natin states Minrity languages Bilateral agreements with regard t minrities A new reginal apprach in Suth Asia fr minrities? Natinal laws & pssibilities f dialgue Reginal territrial and nn territrial autnmy Institutinal refrms Legal pluralism Media Research plicy materials and publicatins Impact f EU in Suth Asia and the impact f Suth Asian research fr Eurpe Lessns t be learnt Selected bibligraphy

3 EURASIA Net Deliverable N. 5, Jint Research Agenda Prepared by MCRG and Brunel University in the framewrk f Eurasia Net Prject In partnership with partners and assciates f the prject This deliverable will fcus n research plicies and trends in bth Eurpe and Suth Asia, and t include the new ideas generated by the Final Cnference, with special regard t the Transreginal Platfrm. Eurpean research must create, tgether with clleagues frm the regin, the knwledge basis fr an effective and cmprehensive EU cperatin plicy with Suth Asia. A first, indispensable step in this directin is t develp a jint research agenda fcusing n human and minrity rights as ne f the mst critical factrs f Suth Asian reginal stability. Tw different sets f experiences were markedly nticed during the prject; the rutes in which minrity rights have been apprached. The Jint Research Agenda will help t develp a nuanced apprach and best practice as t hw t develp trans natinal platfrms. The bjective f this research agenda is nt t take Eurpean slutins and lk at hw this has r can be adapted t best fit Suth Asia, but relies mre n a histrical apprach in which surces f cmmn experience are shared and institutinal structures are build upn. The fllwing tpics have been selected t further the research agenda in light f the further discussins and meetings held by cnsrtium members f EURASIA Net. The tpics relate t the reprts and research bank gained frm the Study Visit reprts, in additin t Cnsrtium discussins regarding the effect that each f the fllwing has n the aims and bjectives f the EURAISA NET prject verall. Cmparative experiences f reginal instruments Natinal laws & pssibilities f dialgue Research plicy materials and publicatins Impact f EU in Suth Asia and the impact f Suth Asian research fr Eurpe 3

4 1. Intrductin The Cperatin and Supprt Actin, under which EURASIA Net is funded, prmtes equitable dialgue and the develpment f lng term durable research partnerships, understanding that jint research prjects can generate added value and cst effectiveness by expliting the resurces and scientific excellence f the partners, funding new research, exchanging knw hw and transferring technlgies, and prviding n the jb training and wrk experience. It als fcuses n hw internatinal research c peratin can help stimulate sci ecnmic develpment and glbal cmpetitiveness. The EU has been actively invlved in prmting human rights as part f its external relatins with neighbring states, new member states and prspective member states, such as thse f the Western Balkans. Cnclusins drawn frm the Eurasia Net prject emphasise the vital imprtance f the EU cntinuing t be actively invlved in Suth Asian plitics and the prmtin f a research agenda, nt nly in terms f aid packages and bilateral r multilateral trade relatins as has previusly been the case, but als in terms f transnatinal security issues related t vluntary and frced migratin, trafficking, cunter terrrism, the envirnment and pandemic health issues. The different experiences in EU and the Suth Asian regin in terms f cnflict reslutin and cnflict management, and the prmtin f minrity rights, each based n its wn legacies f vilence r nn vilence, cnflict r recnciliatin, can prvide a useful cmparisn fr understanding the micr level causes and effects f cnflict itself. In additin t wrk dne by the Cuncil f Eurpe and the EU in this field, significant cntributins in the field f minrity rights are made by anther inter gvernmental rganizatin, the Organizatin f Security and C peratin in Eurpe (OSCE). The cncern shwn fr the subject f minrity rights within the OSCE stretches back t the Helsinki Final Act. The Cpenhagen Dcument is valuable fr the prpagatin f minrity rights. Similarly, the Osl Recmmendatins regarding the Linguistic Rights f Natinal Minrities and the Lund Recmmendatins n the Effective Participatin f Natinal Minrities in Public Life are als based arund pre existing legal standards. The Osl Recmmendatins deal with subjects as far reaching as names, religin and the media. The Lund Recmmendatins deal with tw main tpics, the participatin f the Natinal Minrity in the gvernance f the State as a whle, and self gvernance ver certain lcal r internal affairs. Research n minrities in Eurpe within the Eurpean Research Agenda, which supprts the develpment and supprt f research n ptential threats t human rights, is hw the EU can design and implement mre cmprehensive plicies. The EU has recgnized that majr glbal challenges such as climate change, pverty, infectius disease, threats t energy, fd and water supply and security f the citizen highlight the need fr effective internatinal research cperatin. The Prgramme n Scial Sciences and Humanities f the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Research Framewrk Prgrammes f DG Research (RTD) f the Eurpean Cmmissin has addressed varius dimensins f human rights and minrity rights thrugh a multilateral apprach in funded research prjects. Researches n the minrities in Suth Asia are nt centrally rganized, r are nt cnducted accrding t any cllabrative plan. Indeed, cnducted at varius levels smetimes they act at crss purpses with ne anther. In the absence f a clearly laid ut, crdinated and cherent 4

5 research plicy n minrities, we find cnsiderable difficulties in assessing it. Research plicy in that sense can serve as a catalyst fr changing the terms f ur nging discurses. Research n the subject f minrities in Eurpe als suffers frm a lack f central crdinatin and rganizatin, nt least because f a failing in the cmmn cnceptual understanding f a definitin. That said, and as shall be discussed further, researchers and analysts can rally arund the reginal instruments which engage with minrities (e.g. the Framewrk Cnventin n Natinal Minrities and Eurpean Charter fr Reginal r Minrity Languages). 2. Cmparative experiences f reginal cperatin 2.1. Intrductry remarks In the case f Suth Asia, hwever, an bjective analysis f minrities and their rights cntinues t face difficulties nt nly frm the appraches f States, but als there is little expsure t issues frm amngst the research cmmunities themselves. While mst f the studies in Suth Asia fcus n minrities within their respective cuntries, there have been very little if at all in the existing literature either by way f cmparing them r discvering their cntinuities and linkages. The researches n the minrities in Suth Asia reflect little pan reginal awareness. Histrical and cultural cntinuities prvide as it were with an ideal case fr cmparing the minrities acrss the cuntries f the regin. Since the East Pakistan cnflict, the fremst reginal rganizatin within Suth Asia is the Suth Asian Assciatin fr Reginal C peratin (SAARC). SAARC, which cnsists f eight states f Suth Asia was frmally established in December The current membership f SAARC cmprises f Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. In terms f its ppulatin, SAARC is the largest rganizatin: the cmbined ppulatin f its Member States cnsists f ver 1.5 billin peple. SAARC, much like the Eurpean Unin (during the Eurpean Unin s initial phases), was devised as primarily a plitical rganizatin with the bjective f greater ecnmic cperatin amngst member states. There was a similar institutinal lacuna in SAARC fr the prmtin and prtectin f individual human rights r minrity rights. That said, the institutinal framewrk f SAARC has prvided pprtunities t debate and examine key issues relevant t human rights and minrity rights f the regin. Declaratin n the Cnditins f Minrities in SAARC Cuntries, adpted by the delegates t the wrkshp n this cncern, discussed the issues f minrity rights as a pririty amng the member states. Having said that, in practice, SAARC remains as a minr player in s far as reslutins f reginal disputes are cncerned. The intransigence f the tw larger states, Pakistan and India, ver a number f issues including Kashmir, has been a majr disappintment. Similarly SAARC has had an unimpressive recrd in dealing with ntable cnflicts such as thse invlving the Tamils in Sri Lanka, the Adivasis f the Chittagng Hill Tracts (in Bangladesh), Nepali speaking Bhutanese (residing in Nepal) and the Maist rebels (in Nepal). In this regard, there is clearly a cntrast with the psitin in Eurpe. It culd be argued that ne majr reasn is that Eurpe is nw a melting pt with a mix f ethnic, racial, linguistic and religius grupings. Furthermre, the institutinal mechanisms led by the Treaty f Rme (1957) and the Cuncil f Eurpe (1949) have engineered mbilizatin and realizatin f rights, 5

6 including human rights. The ECHR was adpted in 1950 and came int peratin in 1953 and currently prvides prtectin t well ver 800 millin peple. The visin f ECHR n minrity r grup rights, hwever, is particularly thin. The prvisins f the Eurpean Cnventin n Human Rights as well as the jurisprudence arising frm the Strasburg institutins has reflected the difficulties in advancing the cause f minrities as distinct entities; it is the absence f the fcus n grup rights that is prblematic (Harris et al 1995). The ECHR cntains a number f prvisins relevant t prtecting the interests f minrities. Hwever, it is nly Article 14 (prviding fr a regime f nn discriminatin) and Prtcl 12 (prviding fr a general prhibitin f discriminatin) that direct references t minrities are made. In the Eurpean human rights agenda, anther significant rle is played by the EU s Eurpean Mnitring Centre n Racism and Xenphbia (EUMC), which became n 15 February 2007 the EU Agency fr Fundamental Rights (FRA). This institutin, based in Vienna, is tasked with develping plicies relating t fundamental rights fr EU institutins and member states. Its purpse is als t assist the EU institutins (but partly als the member states, especially when they are implementing EU law) in prmting fundamental rights and aviding vilatin f the latter. Racism, xenphbia and intlerance cntinue t be pririties within its extended mandate. 2.2 Cmmn reginal issues Migratin and natin states By all accunts, migratin acrss natin states has increased multi fld ver the recent years. Althugh an early attempt t study sme f these ppulatin flws was made, it certainly requires t be revisited in the changed cntext f glbalizatin in Suth Asia. The mixed and massive ppulatin flw has nt nly created new minrities but als triggered ff schisms between the lcals and the migrants and many f the scieties f Suth Asia seem t be bursting n their seams. While the hst cuntry may have its reasns t feel unhappy with the massive immigratin frm acrss its brders, the sending cuntry cnveniently dumps its excess ppulatin and refuses t acknwledge it. This has smetimes caused diplmatic standffs between the cuntries f Suth Asia. It is true that such Alice in Wnderland plicy is unhelpful, fr, a slutin will always elude us if the prblem is nt recgnized in the first place. On the ther hand, there cannt be any unilateral slutin t such issues. A trans reginal platfrm is ideally placed t first f all recgnize minrity prducing crss brder migratin as a prblem and then t evlve pssible strategies f addressing it. Researches n scenaris f individual cuntries can at best be partial in their understanding f the magnitude and impact f such immigratin and the interruptin it causes t gvernmental peratins. Mbility, de territrializatin and shifting bundaries play a crucial rle in Suth Asia: with the partitin f India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, substantial recnfiguratins thrugh migratin and ther reginal mbilities instigate the cnstitutin f nn territrial identities. This cunts fr thse belnging t majrities in ne cuntry and t minrities in anther, but als fr minrity ppulatins living in brderland territries. Mbility, new understanding f identity, and the ensuing grievances and claims pse challenges t bth, EU and Suth Asia. With the enhanced mbility, cllective identities stretch acrss natinal brders, and cmplex lcal cnstellatins 6

7 f belnging cme t life resulting frm the accmmdatin f migrants within territries inhabited by thse wh claim being indigenus t the territry. Such cllectivities as Albanians, Plish, and Pakistani in Eurpe, and a number f religius, linguistic and ethnic minrities in India are nt assciated with a specific territry. In cnsequence, new dynamics f mbility and belnging call fr a re cnceptualisatin f legal framewrks fr recgnitin (resulting in legal pluralism), distributinal patterns f public expenditure (welfare, develpment), (bridging) civil sciety cnstellatins as well as the plitical culture f cnflict mitigatin and cnflict reslutin. Nn territrial identities bring abut the necessity t lk at cultures f gvernance and cnflict reslutin fr lcal scieties cmprising thse nt having territrial identities in relatin t territrial nes. Eurpean research has paid extensive attentin t minrity related dilemmas emerging within the cnfiguratin f the natin state but a new fcus nw needs t be develped n issues related t human mbility and freedm f mvement by minrities and thers thrughut Eurpe and beynd, as well as their human rights implicatins, such as t exercise freedm f expressin and religin, right t educatin and thers. In recent years, the EU has develped an ambitius prgramme, the Glbal Apprach. This cnsists f three dimensins: the management f legal migratin, the fight against illegal migratin, and migratin and develpment. Initiatives have been taken under all these headings, ranging frm mbility partnerships and the Blue Card fr skilled migrants, t measures fr dealing with illegal immigratin, and lnger term actins designed t address the push factrs causing emigratin frm develping cuntries. This is crucial when referring t an individual s freedm frm discriminatin as well as the fundamental rights and security f residence f thse wh are n the mve (e.g. Rma). As a result, the plicy f Freedm f mvement f persns within EU clearly stands ut as a significant cntrast t the plicies pursued in Suth Asia. Althugh, it is clear that there cntinue t remain substantial issues as regards freedm f mvement in s far as EU natinals are cncerned, there remain areas f cncern, e.g. rights (including plitical and ecnmic rights) f EU natinals in sme member states; the psitin f partners r spuses f EU natinals wh are nn EU natinals; factrs relating t lng term residence f EU natinals in an ther member State (e.g., wrk and pensin related matters). Eurpe has experienced century lng internal migratins and a significant influx f migrants frm ther cntinents, including Suth Asia, gaining mmentum frm the mid 20 th century nwards. As a result, Eurpe and its natinal scieties display a high degree f diversity in their cultural and religius cmpsitin. The Eurpean separatin f law and religin is under scrutiny and currently in a transitinal phase due t new challenges faced by the mass migratin t Eurpe. It is therefre impssible fr Eurpean States, including the EU, t avid measures n diversity management. In this regard it is f critical imprtance t examine and learn frm Suth Asia, with its unique experiences f diversity and plurality. Significant differences prevail in Eurpe with regards t the percentage f immigrant ppulatins within natinal brders as well as t the natinal ppulatins self understanding as immigrant scieties that shape attitudes twards the new cmers. In cntemprary terms, there remain significant cncerns as regards the Eurpean mdel f plural scieties sme wuld suggest the fficial state plicies are clser t frced assimilatin f minrities. Differing patterns emerge as t hw immigrant religins and cultures weave int the fabrics f the Eurpean arrival scieties. Given the enduring and diverse Eurpean preccupatins with immigrant religins (Zlberg and Lng, 7

8 1999), it is nt surprising that the EU has been preccupied with the questin hw t tackle the relatin between religin, state, and sciety. In the drafting prcess f the Eurpean Cnstitutin, the pre existing natinal status qu arrangements have been left intact Appraches t this issue differ acrss the EU; they embrace mdes f separatin between state and church (France), exclusive establishments (England) as well as the highly differing arrangements fr states public recgnitin f religins in the Netherlands, Germany, and Belgium (Casanva, 1994). The Netherlands adpted the apprach f diversity management (Baumann and Sunier, 2002). In England, accmmdatin practices tend t highlight ethnic and religius difference. The pluralist rights based apprach in the UK is quite different frm the assimilatin strategies in France that has embarked n a rather different path, embracing republican ideals that seek t define natinal cmmnalities by criteria ther than cultural elements (Benhabib, 2002), and especially seeks t keep religius manifestatins away frm the public sphere. In Germany, where Christian religins have been accrded mre space utside the private dmain, prlnged scietal cnflicts regard the nn Christian religins especially Islams access t spaces cnsidered public Minrity languages In the framewrk f minrity rights language is prbably the issue, which in Eurpe has gt majr attentin in bth, the legislatin and implementatin, but als in research regarding its impact n scial and cultural reality. The Cuncil f Eurpe s adptin f the Framewrk Cnventin fr the Prtectin Natinal Minrities and the Eurpean Charter fr Reginal r Minrity Languages represents an imprtant develpment fr minrity prtectin. The OSCE and the Treaty f Lisbn has als brught the subject f minrity rights t the frefrnt f its agenda, recgnizing the imprtance f such rights in rder t ensure peace and prevent future cnflict. Cnsequently the tw majr internatinal cvenants tday in frce in Eurpe (the Framewrk Cnventin n Natinal Minrities and the Eurpean Charter fr Reginal r Minrity Languages) attach t the language rights utmst imprtance. A cmparative study in linguistic rights f ethnic minrities f Suth Asia and Eurpe is, therefre, needed. This kind f cmparisn between Eurpe (the signatry states f the FCNM) and India in particular culd be dne fcusing n sme basic linguistic rights: the right f public use f its language, the right t use the language in public sphere in cntact with public authrities and bdies, the right t be taught in its mther tngue, the right t infrmatin in minrity languages. The cmparisn shuld analyse the legal prvisins adpted in varius states and evaluate the prgresses and in different case studies. In sme cases evaluatin f linguistic plicy is well established. What has been dne s far in India and in Suth Asia s far? Which are the grievances and prpsal f the cncerned ethnic minrities? What s abut the threatened languages and peples in Eurpe, India and ther Suth Asian cuntries due t discriminatin and denial f basic rights? This kind f research n a methdlgical level culd als lead t a useful schlarly exchange with regard t methds f investigating and empirical measuring the cmprehensive situatin f a language. After all, in a regin like Suth Asia and perhaps elsewhere, minrities can seldm be treated as a hmgeneus categry. There are individuals and minrities within minrities including wmen, children, gay men and lesbians, religius dissenters and linguistic 8

9 minrities within religius minrities. In this cntext, it needs t be acknwledged that Suth Asia is a cnsiderable distance away frm Eurpe in develping any firm transnatinal guidelines n minrity rights. Bth these initiatives f OSCE, hwever, have been hampered by the reluctance f many states t set clear legal standards and subject themselves vluntarily t internatinal mnitring. What they furthermre have in cmmn is that their legal r plitical instruments have relied n their ability t cmmit member states t minrity prtectin thrugh the prmtin f mral nrms. This means that the type f plicy transfer that these rganizatins have intended is nt cercive, but builds n the ratinal interests f the members and the perceived necessity f plicy change amng them (Vermeesch, 2003). While acknwledging the difficulties with drawing cnclusins frm such subjective nrms, he suggests the fllwing apprach t EU plicy dcuments. The EU s cnditinality plicy has clearly led t at least sme limited frms f plicy transfer... [ ] Mst f the plicy dcuments relating t minrities have been issued after the publicatin f the Eurpean Cmmissin s Agenda This suggests that mst f them have respnded t the Eurpean Cmmissin s mnitring activities, r perhaps have anticipated such mnitring. The term minrity rights plicies when taken as a hlistic apprach in this cntext, therefre, des nt refer t a specific and unifrm plicy prgramme, but t a wide range f plicies which have in cmmn that they all in ne way r anther recgnize and accmmdate the demands f cmmunities distinguishing themselves frm majrity ppulatins by religius, linguistic, cultural and ther characteristics that are cnsidered ethnic. Minrity rights plicies can thus ffer frms f prtectin that g beynd the basic civil and plitical rights guaranteed t all individuals in a liberal demcracy. Examples may be taken frm the practice regarding the effective plitical participatin f natinal minrities, such as the intrductin f minrity self gvernments; the granting f territrial r cultural autnmy t minrity grups; the funding f activities and rganizatins f natinal minrities; the intrductin f particular frms f affirmative actin, guaranteed representatin, media and minrities; research plicy materials and publicatins. Other measures may include research plicy impact f EU in Suth Asia and vice versa; cmparative experiences f reginal instruments; legal pluralism, natinal laws and pssibilities f dialgue Bilateral agreements with regard t minrities Minrity accrds f Suth Asia signed between tw states f the regin cnstitute yet anther almst virgin area f research. While ethnic accrds signed between rganizatins claiming t represent ethnic grups especially minrities and the state have been ne f the favurite subjects f research, accrds between tw natin states fcusing n the questin f bilateral r multilateral minrities are yet t attract the attentin f schlars and researchers. A clse study f select accrds may prvide us with clues t supra natinal bases f cperatin fr minrity prtectin in the regin f Suth Asia. Here again, there is a cnsiderable cntrast with Eurpe, which has had a lng histry f minrity accrds and bilateral agreements amngst natins States, even thugh in many instances these prved redundant. The minrity rights treaties cnducted under the auspicies f the League f Natins prvides a useful example; a further example is that f inter State treaties agreed upn in the aftermath f the Secnd Wrld War. 9

10 Further EU led plicy appraches relating t crss brder issues include the adptin f the Eurpean Neighburhd and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) which has cnsiderably enhanced the scpe fr crss brder cperatin, bth qualitatively and quantitatively and can be utilized t address the prtectin f minrities. Crss brder cperatin is an integral cmpnent f the EU s Eurpean Neighburhd Plicy (cvering the cuntries f Eastern Eurpe, the Suthern Caucasus, and the Suthern Mediterranean), and f the EU Russia Strategic Partnership. It likewise figures in assciated plicies such as the Eur Mediterranean Partnership (Barcelna Prcess), and the Nrthern Dimensin A new reginal apprach in Suth Asia fr minrities? Perhaps fr the first time in Suth Asia, the human rights thinkers raised the demand fr the cnstitutin f an independent Natinal Minrities cmmissin as a Cnstitutinal bdy with adequate pwers t intervene in all instances f infringement f minrity rights. At a supranatinal level, the Suth Asia Frum fr Human Rights (SAFHR) led the frmulatin f a reginal agenda n the issue f minrities. Human rights thinkers urged n the SAARC t create the ffice f a Special Rapprteuer, wh shuld be empwered t review and reprt every year the Heads f the States f Suth Asia n the status f minrities in the cuntries f the regin. In additin, The SAARC Scial Charter signed by the 7 states f Suth Asia n 4 January 2004 is cnsidered as a remarkable advancement in the field f prtectin f minrity and grup rights including thse f the elderly, the wmen and the children. Althugh the term minrity has never been explicitly used, the idea as Clause 2 (XI) f Article II explains is t secure fr the disadvantaged, marginalized and vulnerable persns and grups legal rights and make physical and scial envirnment accessible. While legalizatin f their rights is an effective first step, the Charter als puts emphasis n btaining enabling cnditins fr their bservance and prtectin. Unlike Suth Asia, there is nw a grwing and firm traditin f natinal cmmissin fr prtectin f individual and cllective rights. There is als, as nted a rted traditin f transnatinal prtectin f human rights thurgh such rganizatin as COE and EU. At the instance f the Internatinal Centre fr Ethnic Studies (Clmb), a Statement f Principles n Minrity and Grup Rights in Suth Asia was drawn up and revised in April A Suth Asian Charter n Minrity and Grup Rights was elabrated n the basis f the Statement by a grup f vluntary rganizatins acrss Suth Asia including Internatinal Centre fr Ethnic Studies (Clmb), Centre fr Alternatives (Dhaka), Human Rights and Demcratic Frum (Kathmandu), Mahanirban Calcutta Research Grup (Klkata) and Human Rights Cmmissin (Karachi). The main aim f the Charter published in May 2008 is t effectively address minrity issues and cncerns, which cut acrss cuntries in Suth Asia and enhance reginal respnses t sme f the current weaknesses in cnstitutinal and legislative prtectin and prmtin f minrity and grup rights. Mre specifically, the Charter may be used as a reference tl fr Gvernments, nn State actrs, human rights institutins, NGOs and human rights advcates and plicy makers t draft natinal legislatin, prmte legislative refrm, undertake advcacy, influence decisins, plicies and prgrammes t ensure that they fcus n the prmtin and prtectin f minrity and grup rights. 10

11 As a fllw up t this Charter, Basu Ray Chaudhury n behalf n Mahanirbar Calcutta Research Grup (partner f EURASIA Net) drafted anther Charter n Minrity Rights in India, which was subsequently published in August While taking ff frm the assumptin that the Cnstitutin has nt always been able t reflect the realities f majritarian basis f the Indian plity, the pr state f the prtectin available in the cuntry, and the lw level f the cnstitutinally acknwledged minrity rights, it lays dwn a set f 11 Principles n the basis f which cnstitutinal and legal prvisins are likely t functin. In simple terms, the Principles d nt seek t intrduce any new principle t the Cnstitutin r the legal system but aim precisely at reinfrcing them and mst imprtantly the secular ideal embdied in them. While the Suth Asian Charter is expected t be reaffirmed and adpted by the States Parties, the Principles are laid dwn in the frm f sme mral imperatives t be fllwed by the Indian State because they are incnsnance with the legal and Cnstitutinal prvisins. The Principles per se are nt enfrceable, but nly facilitate the enfrcement f the already enfrceable prvisins. Besides, the Indian Charter envisages synergy between the State, authrities, public and private rganizatins, institutins, crpratins, NGOs, grups r persns, public fficials and private individuals, whether State r nn State actrs and irrespective f their legal status that, accrding t it, is abslutely essential fr ensuring their enfrceability. 3. Natinal laws & pssibilities f dialgue 3.1 Reginal territrial and nn territrial autnmy One f the key issues fr the future research agenda at natinal level, is reginal territrial autnmy smetimes in cmbinatin with cultural r persnal autnmy. In bth cncerned areas, Eurpe and Suth Asia, this has been a majr issue when it came t develp instruments fr bth ethnic minrity prtectin and self gvernance. Reginal autnmy as a specific pwer sharing arrangement between the central and reginal gvernment level has a prven ptential f cnflict slving when addressing the needs f a hmgeneusly settling minrity ppulatin r smaller peples in given limited territry. The State natin cncept was primarily develped pst WW II, whereby the majrity defined the state institutins and the subsequent values and nrms attached t that state t the exclusin f minrities. Discriminating state and scial plicies has cntributed in the frmatin f Natinal/Ethnic/Caste identities in Nepal, fr example. Whereas Eurpe since 1921 has experienced the establishment f sme 36 autnmus regins in 11 states (9 f whse are members f the EU + Mldavia and Ukraine), in Suth Asia reginal autnmy s far has been adpted nly in India. India has a decades ld experience with territrial autnmies especially n the sub state district level. Jammu & Kashmir, after a first perid with fully autnmus status, in the 1950ies lst its special autnmy status (accrding t article 370 Indian Cnstitutin), which cntributed t the nging cnflict and unrest in the area. Apart frm creating new states, a range f accrds and unilateral measures n several regins have been created either as autnmus areas r district cuncils under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules f the Cnstitutin. Nepal with its new cnstitutin, t be frged in the cming mnths, will prbably transfrm int a federal republic in rder t cpe with its ethnic and cultural diversity, whereas in Sri Lanka the effrts f federalising the 11

12 state s structure as a cmprmise with the Tamil minrity dramatically failed re igniting the civil war. In Bangladesh the lng struggle f the Chittagng Hill indigenus peples fr their fundamental rights and territrial autnmy did nt yet lead t a lasting and stable slutin: the first treaty n which the central gvernment in Dhaka and the cncerned minrity peples cnvened, did nt match their expectatins and needs. In Pakistan, besides the general requirement t refrm the federal structure, the issue f reginal territrial autnmy is cncerning especially the Nrthern Areas f Gilgit Baltistan, a huge regin trapped in the Ind Pakistani cnflict n Jammu & Kashmir, deprived nt nly f the right t self gvernance, but als f the fundamental rights t demcratic participatin. The subject f reginal territrial autnmy, has been ne f great significance bth at the cnstitutinal level f Eurpean States as well as at the reginal level. The transfrmatin f certain Eurpean States such as Spain frm a Unitary State t Federalists have led t the reslutin f lng term territrial disputes. In sme instances, regimes f autnmy (such as in the UK) have allwed minrity grups t assert influence in the plitical and cnstitutinal debate. All these changes and mvement fr change have been accmpanied by cnsiderable schlarly interest. In Suth Asia, attempts are nw being made t explre newer institutinal alternatives. We may refer t at least three interesting strands, nt necessarily mutually exclusive, f this debate: First, refrm minded schlars and activists recmmend a Scandinavian Sami like multi layered parliamentary system in which ethnic cmmunities will have the right t represent themselves instead f being bund by the majritarian cmmands f the existing parliamentary system. Secndly, sme have argued that the first cme first served electral system in which the minrities dispersed ver a large space are cnstantly under the subjectin f the numerical, and therefre plitical, majrity is incmpatible with the pluralistic nature f Suth Asian scieties. Even reservatin f seats fr them will nt help the situatin. Intrducing prprtinal representatin is cnsidered as a means f prtecting these grups frm majrity rule and retaining their autnmy. Thirdly, a case has been made fr widening the cnsciatinal base f ur demcratic system. Lijphart (1996), fr example, shws hw the basic precnditins f a cnsciatinal (pwer sharing) demcracy were met during the first few decades f India s independence and hw that base has been weakened as a cmbined result f centralizatin f the Cngress Party and the federal system in the 1980s and grwing attack n minrity rights in different parts f India. He in fact pleads fr resuscitating the institutins and practices f cnsciatinal demcracy that, accrding t him, prtected India reasnably well in the first few decades against inter grup vilence and cmmunal rits. 3.2 Institutinal refrms While suggesting the pssible plicy alternatives, ne has als t explre hw such nnterritrial frms f minrity representatin might spill ver the internatinal brders and include mre than ne natin state fr cnsideratin. Fr example, a Wrk Permit regime that is believed t be situated between the frmal principle f territrial svereignty and cmplete impenetrability f internatinal brders and the ppular practice f disregarding them by way f immigrating frm acrss the brders. The regime implies a certain blurring f the distinctin between citizens and freigners cnsidered as central t the identity f any natin state. A persn wrking in the hst cuntry with a permit is nt cnsidered as a citizen and is bliged t 12

13 leave it as sn as the tenure f permit expires. But such a regime is expected t address the prblem f rising demand fr cheap and inexpensive labur currently filled up by the illegal immigrants fr all practical purpses. The regime can perate prvided bth the sender and the hst cuntries agree t intrduce it. Suth Asia prvides a vast and hithert un researched field f all such experiments with varius institutins and such an exercise shall be initiated. Labur immigratin cntinues t be a significant and divisive issue in Eurpe, hwever, in the cntext f EU firm principles have evlved which make it impermissible t discriminate against EU natinals in the labur market. Research pririties in this field, fr bth Suth Asia and Eurpe include sub autnmy within regins t smaller grups, the empwerment f all ethnic and linguistic grups, the prtectin f minrity and human rights, individual rights within grups, Indigenus rights ver land and natural resurces [where apprpriate] and full participatin in the demcratic prcess. Federalism is an imprtant structural prcedure t address this by taking gvernment and plicy clser t the electrate, but it is nt sufficient t address the prblem f minrities within minrities, fr example. Other institutins are needed t address this; affirmative actins fr Dalit wmen, reservatins. Accmmdatin f difference and perspectives f recnciliatin have been examined thrughut the Eurasia Net prject thrugh cnsidering best practices and plicy. In the perspective f all these, any strategic plicy f research must als take int accunt the histrical interplay f Eurpean and Suth Asian experiences. Cmmn t bth the EU and in India, is the search fr perating and establishing nrms that will be acceptable t thse wh are its members, whether these are individuals, minrity cmmunities r states. While the prcess in the EU invlves mvement frm separate natin states seeking membership f an emergent Eurpean plitical cmmunity twards a slw cming tgether f natins states in an expanding Eurpe, the prcess in India is the reverse where a mre federal, mre decentralized state is emerging, rather than the centralized state frmed at Independence. Here t, the number f cnstituent states is grwing. This prcess f an emerging federal cmmunity, in bth India and EU, that is t be based n cmmn perating nrms, invlves a prcess f negtiatin by the cnstituent units. These negtiatins cncern the rules that are t gvern the plitical behaviur f bth individuals and states and that will serve as the basis f its institutins that will regulate the plitical, scial, ecnmic, and perhaps even envirnmental life, and significantly t ensure diversity amidst the emergent cmmunity. This is a fascinating prcess because it remains unclear, in bth cntexts, whether this emergent plitical cmmunity shuld be a thick r a thin cmmunity; whether the perating nrms that are being negtiated shuld gvern nly a minimalist plitical cmmunity r shuld als extend t the scial, ecnmic, cultural and even eclgical dmains f the emerging cmmunity. The questin n which there is scpe fr furthering research is: What shuld be the extent f this extensin f nrms? In bth the Indian and the Eurpean Unin the plitical cmmunity is layered, within the Eurpean case, the thick plitical cmmunity being at the level f the states and the thin at the level f Eurpe Unin, while in the Indian case there is perhaps an equal distributin between the unin and the states. A lk at the histrical evlutin f the plitical cmmunity shws that bth deliberate design and frtuitus circumstances (Umbert Ec s Serendipity ) have played a part. Nt every institutin has emerged because f the lack f a general agreement amng negtiatrs. Sme have emerged because f respnses t events 13

14 and these have subsequently prved t ffer valuable nrms fr the new plity, such as the public interest litigatin in India and the human rights jurisprudence in Eurpe. 3.3 Legal pluralism Currently in India, the visin f a unifrm civil cde is less sustained in plitics. The Indian cnstitutin gives the pssibility t have mre legal systems; and, in the practice f the f the curts, ne may see that legal pluralism is in place. Mrever, there is a need t research als the applicability f minrities custmary law. In the name f the cllective rights and identity, hwever, the individual rights becme increasingly suppressed; it is a delicate balance. E.g., affirmative actins encunter prblems f applicatin in Suth Asia. The example f the quta in the state f Tamil Nadu is self explaining. The 75% f public psts are determined by qutas. Paradxically, the upper caste is cnsidering t ask fr a quta as well. In the nrthern Indian states a demand is currently advanced fr qutas even in the private sectr. The debate is very high. Therefre, the qutas system may nt be an answer per se. In the legal pluralism discurse the applicatin f bth laws may becme very cntrversial (e.g., applying the natinal and the Muslim laws). The mechanisms t preserve diversity and what institutins may applied t the single case shall, be, therefre, further explred in the future research agenda. 3.4 Media Finally, within EURASIA Net prject research it was als nted that there is nt much difference in media apprach twards minrities in Eurpe and Suth Asia. Three key areas call fr addressing in bth the regins a) Under representatin in the media sectr (like, very few Turks are recruited in the German Media, and very few indigenus peple in the media f Tripura and Assam f India, b) Media cntent that is, hw are minrity issues reflected in the media?, perpetuatin f steretypes (particularly TV), equatin f Muslims with terrrism in media and s n, c) Media Use Majritarian media des nt reflect minrity issues. As a result, a specific minrity media emerges and cmes t dminate within the minrity cmmunity. This has been viewed by sme as a threat t integratin. Minrity representatin amngst the media persns and rientatin and sensitizatin twards the minrities were cited as tw imprtant areas in frmulating an apprpriate media plicy. Suggestins are made t develp a guidebk fr minrity reprting, fr disseminatin f infrmatin t cuncil f Eurpe r SAARC. The need fr encuraging media t adpt self regulatin and evlve a cde f cnduct was als felt. Jurnalists bdies with mnitring respnsibility culd als be set up. 14

15 4. Research plicy materials and publicatins Suth Asia as a regin has generated a rich and grwing bdy f minrity rights literature particularly since the late 1980s. Yet it is imprtant t nte that much f this literature is nt fcused n any explratin int pssible plicy alternatives in rder t address the issues and questins underlined abve. The regin is still a lng way frm evlving what may be called a plicy culture where cncerned peple can cntinuusly debate n minrity prblems and pssible plicy alternatives. The debate n plicies and institutins has already begun. Effrts are being made t break free frm the paradx inherent in the early framewrk f state building in which cnslidatin f a particular cmmunity within a geplitical space necessarily creates its minrities. Fr example, the vicius circle in which a minrity becmes a majrity by way f getting the brders redrawn and thereby creates its wn minrity and the circle cntinues t rll with alarming regularity is inherent in India s established federal setup. Research n minrities f Suth Asia therwise rich and grwing fail albeit with ntable exceptins in lending a pan reginal and supranatinal fcus t them. By cntrast, Suth Asia prvides the example f a regin where bth minrities and majrities are caught in a cmplex web f scial, ecnmic and cultural relatins acrss the state brders rerganized particularly in the wake f Partitin. The reality f supranatinal and crss brder linkages is cmpletely incmpatible with the current research bm that mstly fcuses n minrities insfar as they are cnfined t state territries and thereby becme victims f discriminatin. Slutins interestingly are sught at the natinal level by way f subjecting them t the reasns f gvernment, by firmly emplacing them within the natinal bdy and cnverting the minrities as a categry f pwerlessness int a merely numerical categry. A research plicy that prbes int these linkages and cnnectins can thrw light n the pssible plicy ptins f hw we can prvide fr better and mre effective prtectin f minrity rights particularly at a time when minrities have increasingly becme the bject f active discriminatin by varius scial frces including the states f Suth Asia within their brders. EURASIA Net publicatins tried t cntribute t the research debate in Suth Asia. These included: scientific articles r publicatins, educatinal materials and materials fr specialized media. Stress was given n the need t prduce ther tls f dcumentatin in additin t classical apprach f articles fr academic publicatin. It was felt that this wuld allw research t reach wider audience. There was als interesting suggestin that research data culd als be utilized in creative ways like fr example, t make dcumentary films. The same data culd als be used t prduce multiple utputs. In this way data culd be used fr dual purpses and readers wuld als be highly benefited as there wuld be better access t the findings. Crsscutting wrk was cnsidered as mre interesting than analyzing issues cuntry by cuntry, particularly given the prject s fcus n reginal cllabratin. 15

16 5. Impact f EU in Suth Asia and the impact f Suth Asian research fr Eurpe The EU its inceptin detailed in pt 1, geplitically, adds value t the glbal peace and security architecture which is different in nature frm the UN, the Organisatin fr Security and Cperatin in Eurpe (OSCE), Organisatin fr Ecnmic Cperatin and Develpment (OECD), Wrld Bank r Internatinal Mnetary Fund (IMF). Furthermre, and in additin t the presence f Member States, the EU has delegatins in mre than 130 cuntries, many f which are based in fragile states. It has cast a web f dense and privileged plitical and ecnmic relatins ver many cuntries in particular within the framewrk f the Ctnu Partnership Agreement with the ACP. The EU is als invlved in a number f special missins in many (mstly pst cnflict) cuntries, such as fr instance its plice missin in Afghanistan. What is needed is a prgramme fr establishing a Eurasian think tank that will help in crdinating knwledge amngst its diverse surces.. There is a traditin f Indian and Suth Asian studies in many Eurpean MS hwever: the Internatinal Institute fr Asian Studies f Leiden, the Centre d études de l Inde et de l Asie du sud in France, the Suedasien Institut f Heidelberg University, the Centre f Suth Asian Studies f Cambridge University, the Department f Suth Asian Studies at the University f Warsaw, SASNET in Scandinavia and the Nrdic Institute fr Asian Studies in Cpenhagen, t mentin sme f the mst well knwn institutins. But the very significant challenge f develping a rbust prmtin f minrity prtectin within the varied plities f the EU and Suth Asia has nt yet been the bject f an in depth analysis, and all attempts t fcus n this research subject suffer frm fragmentatin and a lack f structured cperatin by Indian and Eurpean researchers. Eurpean examples include: Eurpean Insitutute fr Asian Studies, Belgium Overseas Develpment Institut (UK) Estudis de Plitica Exterir, Madrid (Spain) Fundaci CIDOB, Barcelna (Spain) Danish Institute fr Internatinal Studies, Cpenhagen (Denmark) Rskilde University Centre, Rskilde (Denmark) Department f Strategic and Defence Studies, Finnish Natinal Defence Cllege, Helsinki (Finland) Institute f Develpment Studies (IDS) University f Helsinki (Finland) Centre des Sciences Humaines, New Delhi (France) CERI, Centre d Etudes des Relatins Internatinales, Paris (France) Institut für Asienkunde, Hamburg (Germany) Hellenic Fundatin fr Eurpean and Freign Plicy (Greece) Institute fr Ecnmic and Industrial Research (Greece) Frnt Line, Dublin (Ireland) Dublin Centre fr Asian Studies, University Cllege Dublin (Ireland) CESPI, 16

17 Interkerkeeklijk Vredesberaad, The Hague (Netherlands) Centre fr Asian Studies, University f Amsterdam (Netherlands) ECCP, Eurpean Centre fr Cnflict Preventin, Utrecht (Netherlands) Institut de Estuds Estrategics e Internacinais, Lisbn (Prtugal) SASNET, Swedish Suth Asian Studies Netwrk Internatinal Office, Lund (Sweden) Dems (UK) Freign Plicy Centre (UK) A cnsensus has emerged that the Trans natinal platfrm shuld be cntinued beynd the life f EURASIA Net prject. It is necessary t fster and supprt frmalized cperatin between universities in Eurpe and Suth Asia. Eurpean Unin shuld fund and pen centre fr peace studies in Suth Asia in rder t prmte cllabratin and raise awareness. It was als realized that cperatin with the fficials is a crucial aspect. Hence cntinuus cperatin shuld be recmmended t E.U. The platfrm that the prject has successfully established culd turn ut t be a pssible training centre fr EU fficials ging nt missins in Suth Asia. It was brught int frefrnt that a lt f rich data has been cllected. S in each member state there shuld be an infrmatin pint cllecting, and reprts shuld be sent each year t Eurpean Cmmissin. This shuld exist in the Suth Asian states as well. Eurpean Cmmissin r Eurpean Unin, befre annuncing a new prgramme shuld cnsult with Suth Asian agencies t identify genuine needs first. Again, there shuld be cnsultatin between Eurpean and Suth Asian agencies and a cntact bk shuld be there which wuld have the details f all imprtant agencies r peple f the regin. The way EU judges standards and criteria culd als be implemented in the Suth Asian cntext especially with the advent f the Lisbn Treaty, there is nw a cnstitutinal principle relating t the reslutin f cnflict and prmtin f peaceful cexistence within EU Member States; the first bjective f the Eurpean Unin being t prmte peace (TEU article 3 1). Hwever in the cntext f Suth Asia there remains a fear f demand fr self determinatin frm grups. Suth Asia has an imbalance in pwer in the case f India. In cntrast there is n single state dminance in Eurpe. Rather there are mre pwer blcks and cntextual cnsideratins. S it is nt pssible at the mment t draft a SAARC dcument based n framewrk cnventin as SAARC is a weak platfrm fr these kinds f legal measure. A cncrete psitin frm SAARC n issues f refugees, disaster relief etc., wuld als be desirable. A pssibility is als there f enabling taskfrce t intervene in these issues r events. This culd turn ut t be the starting pint f enhancing reginal cperatin n humanitarian aids and security, which culd again be extended t include issues f minrity prtectin. Hwever things shuld be ushered in gradually as t be t demanding culd turn int cunterprductive. Incremental apprach is preferred which wuld prbably be mre effective. Traditin f bilateral treaties shuld remain imprtant in frmulating slutins. The Suth Asian research agenda culd be infrmed by the EU Cmmittee f the Regins which ntes that lcal gvernment shuld actively be encuraged t mesh their plicies with plicies perating at natinal and Eurpean levels t ensure a strng, united and transparent framewrk 17

18 fr the prmtin f innvatin Research plicy gvernance in the regins has three aspects: plicy shaping, plicy making and plicy implementatin. Plicy shaping is imprtant, because it can be very efficient, while kept relatively infrmal and pen. There exist already many cnsultative mechanisms, bth frmal and infrmal, which affrd pprtunities, including fr reginal actrs, t cntribute t research and innvatin plicy inputs. Regrettably, tday reginal imbalance f pwer and the lack f valuable plitical will by SAARC member states are hampering the whle reginal lawmaking prcess. Given the Suth Asian reluctance in embarking n treaty making prcesses, a sft law apprach fr the implementatin f standards f minrity rights prtectin seems t be mre feasible slutin fr the regin than hard law. Implementatin f standards f human and minrity prtectin shuld be pursued in a cmprehensive way s as t include security and ecnmic dimensins in its develpment. The EU shuld therefre g beynd a gvernment fcused apprach t dealing with Suth Asia by wrking mre actively t prmte and encurage the develpment f nn state players in the regin. Equally imprtantly, a new EU civil sciety initiative alng the same lines as the cntinued trans reginal platfrm shuld be encuraged t encurage clser cntact and cperatin between media, think tanks, academics, activists and wmen s grups in all bth regins 6. Lessns t be learnt This prject has clearly delivered n a number f frnts. It has cnfirmed the value f ascertaining a cmparative natinal, transnatinal, reginal and glbal level. Individual and cllective rights have a natinal and a supranatinal dimensin bth in Eurpe and Suth Asia, and as has this prject has established bth regins have yet t learn fully frm each ther's experiences in terms f accmmdating f human and minrity rights. Eurpe, especially thrugh the EU and COE has firm institutinal mechanisms and yet there regularly emerge cnsiderable lacunae in the prtectin f rights. In the cntext f Suth Asia, ntwithstanding an ancient traditin f engaging with cultural, religius, linguistic and ethnic management, the regin cntinues t lack in any frmalised transnatinal mechanism f dealing with vilatins f rights. The research cnducted in this prject, particularly thrugh the study visits, the analysis and debate in the summer schls and the EU delegatin infrmatin sessins, has further highlighted bth the strengths and weaknesses in the tw reginal systems. The prject has impacted n the minds and thughts f nt nly researchers, but has als allwed plicy makers t cnsider issues f cmplexity and tensins. In essence EURASIA Net has been successful in enhancing the much needed knwledge base fr instituting new plicies and strategies in reducing ethnic religius cnflicts and allwing fr a greater measure f autnmy fr bth Eurpe and Suth Asia. 18