Keywords

The ILO (2018) estimated that around 15% of the 164 million total workforce in the world comes from South Asia. For a region comprising of a massive 1.94 billion people (UN-DESA, 2020) and eight countries- namely India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Afghanistan, Bhutan and the Maldives, that may constitute only a small fraction of its population. But this is also a highly important demographic dimension contributing to the development of their home regions and the destination countries in a number of ways. Indeed, the South Asian region has been the highest recipient of remittances over the years, being immune and resilient to a number of shocks, including the COVID-19 pandemicFootnote 1 (Rajan, 2012). Migration from the region has been one of the most important facets of the development of these countries, especially at the micro-level, with the benefits of migration going to households themselves, uplifting a number of people out of destitution in a region where poverty and unemployment is rife. Over the years these countries have tried to harness the potential of this demographic dividend by enacting a number of policies and incentives to keep this trend going.

Remittances into South Asian countries have flowed in at a constant rate over the [ast few decades, ranging anywhere from about 1% of total GDP in the Maldives to about 25% of total GDP in Nepal. India has consistently been the largest recipient of remittances in the world for the past decade. Remittances also form the largest share of foreign incomes in these countries, cementing the major role that migration has played in contributing to the countries.

While emigration from South Asia has been studied and deliberated over a number of years, an aspect that has been covered far less is the magnitude of migration within the region itself. The United Nations- Department of Economic and Social Affairs has estimated that there are about 13.9 million workers within the South Asian region, out of which 10.9 million reside within the region itself (UN-DESA, 2020), which is a significant number whose migrationisto be discussed in detail (Rajan, 2017, 2020) However, whenever it is discussed, it is often in terms of the negatives. The socio-political history of the region makes it complicated to imagine the cross-border mobility. This, however, is a misnomer and one that needs to be looked over in order to envisage a better future for the region. However, in order to get there, it is necessary to unpack the foundation of this complication.

1 History of South Asia: A History of Mobility

Migration within the region is something that has been the norm over the course of history, given thecontiguous nature of the nations in the region. A number of civilizations and kingdoms in the region meant that populations over the years have moved about and mingled with each other throughout the ages. Mass emigration from India has also been a historic process, with labourers leaving the shores of what was previously the British India, which encompassed all the countries which currently constitute the South Asian region. Jain (1989), estimates that around 30 million people emigrated to British colonies all around the world. This is important to note as this is the foundation of labour migration out of the region.. For example, a number of Tamil workers from what is now the south Indian state of Tamil Nadu emigrated en-masse to plantations in what is now Sri Lanka and Myanmar (Naujoks, 2009; Rajan et al., 2021). Migration from Nepal has always been constant in the region. Similar migrations have taken place throughout the region with workers travelling across what was a historically contiguous region. Scores of people travelled through the South Asian region during the British Raj, establishing livelihoods and residences in the region, as part of what Tumbe (2018) calls the “The Great Indian Migration Wave” of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Migration within the South Asian region, thus, cannot be dis-entangled from the colonial experience. These migration routes have continued throughout history, a process that was halted by the exit of the British from the region and the violent partition of the Indian sub-continent.

The partition of the sub-continent saw the emergence of a new sovereign order in the region and a redrawing of the borders along religious lines, an event which led to one of the largest and the most rapid mass migrations of people in history, involving an estimated 14.5 million people (Bharadwaj et al., 2008; see also, Fig. 15.1). These borders have come to define the regional mobility that was once freewhich suddenly came to a halt. Borders drawn almost overnight were responsible for dividing countries, communities, households and individuals who shared close cultural and kinship ties with one another. While there was an initial churn of people in decades in the wake of the partition, migration from within the region slowly reduced and mostly in the last few decades.

Fig. 15.1
A line and bar graph of remittance inflow in million dollars and percentage of G D P versus countries. The maximum remittance inflow is for India with 100000, and a minimum of 5 for Maldives. The maximum percentage of G C P is for Nepal with 21.8 and a minimum of 0.1 for Maldives.

Remittances as a percentage of GDP in South Asia, 2022. Source: World Bank inward remittances flow data, 2022

Full size image

But has mobility within the region come to a complete stop? As we see in Table 15.1 this is not the case. There is still some mobility among the countries in the region (Fig. 15.2).

Table 15.1 Migrant population stock within South Asia, 2019
Full size table
Fig. 15.2
A line graph of the population in millions versus years from 1990 to 2015. It begins at 13.81 in 1990 and gradually falls to 9.65 in 2015.

Migrant stock within South Asia 1990–2015. Source: Srivastava and Pandey (2017)

Full size image

We find that, unsurprisingly, given its relative geographical, economic and population size, India emerges as the largest hub of migration within the region – hosting significant numbers of migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal. Nepal and India, in fact, share an open border with free movement of people on either sides, which has been in force since the signing of the bilateral Peace and Friendship Treaty in 1950. This Table 15.1 also depicts the fact that despite having relatively hard borders with one another, there have been certain corridors of migration within the region. Apart from the Indo-Nepal corridor, there has been open borders between India and Bhutan, signed as part of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in 1949; and a corridor between Bhutan and Nepal through the Indian state of Sikkim, which has been made through various bilateral treaties. Another notable figure is the number of citizens from Afghanistan who reside in Pakistan, which we will discuss later in the chapter.

These numbers however, are likely to be severe undercounts as well, as the absence of proper frameworks have made a large number of migrations within South Asia irregular in nature, which is the main point of contention withinthe region. The lack of a comprehensive legal framework for migration within the region also leaves a large number of these migrants vulnerable to exploitation as well as to the vagaries of political rhetoric, which often uses them as a crutch to further divisive political agenda (see also, Chap. 6 in this volume). A case in point is of Bangladeshi workers in India, who constitute a large share of the migrant population in India. While initially comprising of Hindu refugees escaping war and persecution in the period before the formation of Bangladesh in 1971, migrants from the 1990s onwards have been mostly economic migrants (Srivastava & Pandey, 2017). This has led to Bangladeshi migrants often being looked at suspiciously and more often contemptuously asa “burden”on the Indian economy. Similarly, while it is estimated that there are around one million Nepalese workers in India, that number is likely to be around 2 or three million as there are no official records of Nepalese citizens in India or vice versa (Samuels et al., 2011; NIDS, 2010).

However, a deeper look intothese communities depicts a picture of the socio-political turmoil in the region.

2 Refugees, Forced Migration and Undocumented Migration in South Asia

It is well known that a large number of refugees find refuge in the neighbouring countries. This is especially evident in the case of South Asia, which houses 2.5 million refugeesFootnote 2 – one of the largest refugee havens in the world (Table 15.2). In fact, Pakistan houses the fourth largest refugee population in the world, who are mostly refugees from Afghanistan, escaping decades of conflict in their country (see also Chap. 15 in this volume).

Table 15.2 Refugee populations in South Asia
Full size table

Bangladesh has seen a major rise in its refugee population in the recent years with the Rohingya community escaping persecution in the neighbouring Myanmar. Similarly, India has had a long history of accommodating a number of refugee communities fleeing persecution in the neighbouring countries – Tibetans from China, Sri Lankan Tamils escaping civil war in Sri Lanka, Pakistani Hindu refugees as well as other communities such as the Chakmas from Bangladesh and also recently the Afghan refugees (Rajan, 2022). Given this movement of refugee populations across the border throughout the decades, there has never been a refugee policy in place in these countries, let alone one for the region. Socio-political turmoil is not something new in the region, so what would explain this reluctance on the part of the governments to put in place any common framework for refugee movements? A look at this issue, would in fact, highlight the challenges in getting a common framework for movement in South Asia.

Another issue that keeps coming up is the issue of undocumented migration and human trafficking. Irregular migration in particular is prevalent inthe corridors of Bangladesh and India; India and Pakistan and also Afghanistan and Pakistan (Srivastava & Pandey, 2017). This is always a source of major political and social tension in the region, where migrant workers are intentionally targeted for ulterior gains. Additionally, South Asian countries are the source, transit and destination for human trafficking for various reasons. The UNODC’s Global Trafficking of Persons report in 2016 reported that 88% of trafficking victims detected within South Asia originated from within the sub-region itself. (UNODC, 2016).

However, while a major flow of migration in South Asia is through the movement of irregular migrants, trafficked persons and refugees, there are also a number of other migrants within the region who migrate for many different purposes, and through many different channels. It is always this issue, though, which captures the imaginations of policymakers and the public alike whilediscussingmigration within South Asia, which presents significant challenges for envisioning movement among the countries.

3 Challenges to Free Movement in South Asia

Given the fractious socio-political history of the region, cross-border migration has always been a point of contention within these countries. Cross-border migrants are often seen with suspicion, especially citing national security reasons. While almost all South Asian Countries have laws, institutions and elaborate processes that regulate emigration out of the country, they have not been implemented with the objective of creating a window for more migration within the region itself. Historically, co-operation amongthe countries in the South Asian region hasbeen tenuous at best. India, being a dominant entity in the region, the formation of a regional body, the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation or SAARC, has done little to better this situation. A number of reasons have been cited for its failure from the internal politics of its member states; the lack of a conflict mediation and resolution mechanism to the asymmetry between India, which is by far the largest member in terms of economy, geographic size and population, and suspicion among the rest of the membersonIndia’s intentions with SAARC. South Asian countries have rather opted for bi-lateral treaties to deal with their issues (Bhattacharjee, 2018).

Even when it comes to the topic of migration, which is such a vital issue among all South Asian countries, there is little co-operation amongthe member states as to how to facilitate migration within the region. Most of the countries have their own elaborate legal frameworks and institutionsto regulate emigration. (Table 15.3).

Table 15.3 Emigration infrastructure in South Asia
Full size table

While these regulations are in place to make migration more orderly and regular in nature, they often end up causing barriers to free movement within the region. More importantly, none of these institutions work with each other in order to ensure a smoother flow for potential migrants within the region. Migration within South Asia remains a largely irregular movement of people, which causes a number of issues for the migrants themselves. South Asia, with its enormous size, potential and issues should be a hub for movement of not only goods and services but also for the movement of people. There have been a number of instances where free movement of people has resulted in the net benefit of countries and its people.

4 Opportunities and Challenges to Free Movement: the EU, ECOWAS and Mercosur

The World Trade Organisation, through its General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), puts forward that, services can be traded in “four modes” – namely, cross border supply, consumption abroad, commercial presence of services in one country and in another; and the presence of natural persons among WTO member states. Mode 4 maintains that the presence of natural persons from one member state in other member states is an essential pillar of maintaining free trade.Footnote 3

However, it is often seen that allowing free movement of people is a much more combative issue when compared to the flow of goods and services. The borders are considerably harder for people than it is for goods and trade, which often turns into an issue of socio-political contention. Developing countries especially have a greater interest in the liberalisation of the movement of natural persons as a service, as they have the comparative advantage in human resources – especially when it comes to the abundance of unskilled and semi-skilled labour (Brown & Kingston, 2003; Dey, 2007; Rajan, 2018, 2019).

However, this does not mean that there have not been attempts made at achieving free movement within specific sub-regions. The most prominent and recent example is that of the European Union.

The free movement of people across the EU member states is enshrined as a fundamental principle of the EU Treaty as given in Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and developed by EU secondary legislation and the Case law of the Court of Justice. As such, EU citizens are entitled to the right to:

  • look for a job in another EU country

  • work there without needing a work permit

  • reside there for that purpose

  • stay there even after the employment has finished

  • enjoy equal treatment with nationals in access to employment, working conditions and all other social and tax advantages.Footnote 4

In addition, the EU citizens may also avail medical and social security coverage which is transferrable across the member states.

The free movement of people within the European Union has led to significant gains in overall employment and productivity in the region. In fact, in 2017, it was estimated that free movement of people within the EU-28 countries led to a collective boost of around 106 billion Euros in the region. Unemployment rates in the region also fell from 9.6% to 6.7% from 2010 to 2018. This correlates very closely with the increasing number of ‘mobile EU-28 citizens’ residing in other EU-28 countries (Müller, 2019). This has, in turn led to a larger share of revenues through remittances and taxes in the region. The European Union has benefitted tremendously from the free movement of its citizens.

A similar phenomenon and one that is close to the South Asian experience is seen in the formation of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in 1975, which consists of 16 member countries.Footnote 5 Given similar histories of colonialism and newly demarcated borders, the ECOWAS serves as an important example for co-operation among post-colonial states. Article 27 of the ECOWAS treaty puts forward the need for economic integration, which entailed not only a free flow of goods and services, but also of people across the sister states. This was further re-affirmed by the passing of the 1979 Protocol on the Free Movement of Persons, and the Right of Residence and Establishment, which was passed in 1986 (Adepoju, 2015). Its provisions included the following:

  1. (i)

    The Community citizens have the right to enter, reside and establish in the territory of the Member States;

  2. (ii)

    The right of entry, residence and establishment is to be progressively established in the course of a maximum transitional period of fifteen (15) years from the definitive entry into force of this Protocol by abolishing all other obstacles to free movement of persons and the right of residence and establishment; and

  3. (iii)

    The right of entry, residence and establishment which shall be established in the course of a transitional period shall be accomplished in three phases.

The ECOWAS had a great many difficulties in operationalizing the protocol, with member states often reneging on the basic tenets of the protocol (Yeboah et al., 2021). However, despite these difficulties, the protocol did achieve a level of success in ensuring movement within the region – evidenced by the fact that by the early part of this century, a large number of immigrants in the region came from ECOWAS member states itself (Agyei & Clottey, 2007).

A similar free movement zone exists in South America through the Mercosur. The 2002 Residence Agreement granted the right to free movement across the five sovereign member states of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela and six associate member states.Footnote 6 It provides that the nationals of Mercosur Member States—a group that expanded to include Bolivia and Venezuela—and the Associate Member States Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, and Suriname, may reside and work for a period of 2 years in another Member State if they can prove citizenship and a clean criminal record. This was incidentally achieved almost independent from the commercial and economic agendas of the member states (Brumat, 2017).

Given that the driving force behind the formation of the treaty was, apart from the economic integration of the region, the regularization of migration corridors within the sub-region; the treaty also provides a number of rights to these migrants, including the right to equal working conditions, family reunification, and access to education for their children. After 2 years, the permit may be transformed into permanent residency (Acosta, 2016). The idea is, not only to integrate, but also to reinforce national identities within the region, maintaining country distinctions (Brumat & Acosta, 2019). This treaty has completely changed the mobility regime of the region, providing benefits and real integration among its member and associate states, although the progress has stalledin recent years, especially with regards to a Mercosur citizenship.

5 A Way Forward Through SAARC

The economic integration of sub-regions has been done and within the already existing legal frameworksin different parts of the world. There is no reason why South Asia cannot think of a similar future for their region?. And it can be addressed through an already existing framework of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), which can be seen through its charter itself. The SAARC, which consists of eight full membersFootnote 7 was founded in 1985 with the following goals, as defined in its charter:

  • Promote the welfare of the people of South Asia and improve their quality of life.

  • Accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region by providing all individuals the opportunity to live in dignity and realise their full potential.

  • Promote and strengthen collective self-reliance among the countries of South Asia.

  • Contribute to mutual trust, understanding and appreciation of one another’s problems.

  • Promote active collaboration and mutual assistance in the economic, social, cultural, technical and scientific fields.

  • Strengthen co-operation with other developing countries.

  • Strengthen co-operation among themselves in international forums on matters of common interest; and

  • Cooperate with international and regional organisations with similar aims and purposes.

The member states have agreed to co-operate on a variety of areas ranging from agriculture and rural development, education and culture, trade and finance, tourism, science and technology and cultural exchange. This mandate forms a perfect foundation for the emergence of a free movement zone. However, with such a broad mandate, it is curious to note that the issue of mobility within the region has seldom been taken up and has always been scuppered due to the internal fighting of its members. As we have seen with examples of the EU, ECOWAS and Mercosur, mobility among regional members is not only possible, but also leads to a number of benefits for the citizens of the region.

The prevalence of migration from the region has been discussed at length in the past. For example, the 18th SAARC Summit in Kathmandu in 2014 led to the adoption of the SAARC Declaration regarding the protection of migrant workers abroad. It recognized labour migration as an issue in need of collective action in order to protect migrant workers and other vulnerable populations abroad.Footnote 8 However, there has been no such movement in the case of migration within the region.

The SAARC Regional Multimodal Transport Study had recommended multilateral agreements permitting free movement of goods, services and people across the border by road and rail, which was initially endorsed by the member countries. The 18th Summit also saw progresses made in the passing of the SAARC Motor Vehicles Agreement and SAARC Regional Railways Agreement. However, Pakistan refused to sign these agreements, citing a ‘lack of preparation’ (Mishra, 2015).

This instance provides a glimpse into the issues plaguing the SAARC to begin with. The SAARC was set up with the express objective of improving economic, social and cultural ties among its member countries. It must be said, that on the available evidence, it has so far failed in that objective. The formation of the South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA) in 1993 has not led to any great gains in trade among the member countries. Protectionist measures, inefficient and lengthy border and customs arrangements and poor infrastructure in the member countries have made gains in multilateral trade ambiguous and, if present, spread unequally among some countries (Raihan & Razzaque, 2014). Internal squabbling, particularly given the fractious nature of domestic and international policies of the member states, has made any further gains difficult.

However, a push to integrate the people of the region through movement channels may just be the best method to re-invigorate the association, and by extension, the region. The example of, particularly, the European Union has shown that a free movement of people has definite benefits to the macro and micro development of the region. The overall increase on regional wages and, as a result, on remittances in the case of the European Union is indicative of the fact that, while it may not yet be possible to envisage a migration corridor for long-term labour migration in the region, visa-free entries for 90 days to start with, like in the case of ECOWAS and Mercosur is certainly a start to facilitate safe and orderly migration of people in the region. Ensuring, through the SAARC charter, the protection and rights of these migrants will create a legal framework to tackle with irregular migration and human trafficking.

To begin with, it is vital that a committee be set up under the auspices of the SAARC to estimate and account for cross-border migration that is already happening. Without a proper understanding of the type of migration and its attendant issues and challenges, migrants within South Asia remain at the mercy of political vagaries. It is also vital that a legal infrastructure be set up for the protection and welfare of refugees within the region, with member states contributing to it in the form of financial and infrastructural aid. This model can be one to be emulated in countries all over the world in the coming years.

The SAARC’s mandate of improving people-to-people and improving social, cultural and educational ties is an important one. This is vital in a region with a common history and similar cultures, but which has seen political tensions over the years. However, this also depends on the free movement of people across borders.