Introduction
May 3rd, 2025 marked two years since India’s North-eastern state of Manipur was taken over by violence. While we are now in a position to re-look at its lasting impact on human rights and alteration of the state’s future, academically; the violence is said to have resulted in some of the highest numbers of conflict-induced displacement recorded in South Asia in 2023.The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre in its report for 2024 (see p. 78) flagged India’s conflict induced displacement as the highest since 2018, due to the violence in Manipur.
In the absence of any National policy on Internally Displaced Persons (‘IDP’s’), the case of Manipur has once again exposed the state’s vulnerabilities. It has provided us, unfortunately, with an opportunity to relook and perhaps strategically play the absence of a National policy to the favour of IDP’s. Internationally, the UN Commission on Human Rights acknowledged the Guiding Principle on Internal Displacement (‘Guiding Principles’) in 1998. The Guiding Principles constitute the foundational framework that guides domestic law and response to internal displacement. Succinctly, it is a compilation of human rights entitlement of those that are categorized as internally displaced. The conventional way forward would be to deliberate upon a National policy on Internal displacement and put it through the general rigours of legislative procedure. However, this piece argues that it would be in the interest of efficient protection of rights that the Guiding Principles are directly incorporated as the domestic policy on this point.
Status of IDP’s in International Human Rights Law
Within International Human Rights Law (‘IHRL’), the Guiding Principles function as a one-stop framework through which we are able to encompassingly address the multifarious problems that arise at various stages from displacement to rehabilitation. These Principles act as a tool for the understanding, implementation and development of IHRL. There are multiple ways in which IHRL may be binding upon sovereign states. Largely, there must be a conscious effort by municipal jurisdictions to manifest international human rights standards in their municipal law in order to give it effect. The standards set out by IHRL do not garner ipso facto applicability by mere agreement (Galligan and Sandler, Implementing Human Rights, p. 24), unless they are binding by way of treaty or custom.
This seems necessary in the background of our understanding that International Law still does continue to carry shackles of an imperialist written agenda (see more specifically, B.S. Chimni on The Status of the Individual in International Law: A TWAIL perspective), hardly allowing for the Global South to adapt, customise and argue within its framework in a manner that is beneficial to them. However, another side to such flexibility in this case, specifically for India as I aim to establish, is the inherent power in its ambiguity. IHRL, no doubt does not have the most strongly-worded commitments- while this factor necessitates substantial critical thought and reworking in certain aspects of IHRL, the domain of IDP’s is perhaps left best without domestic specifications.
Existing and sustained inefficiency of a National Policy
In the absence of any specific national law or policy on IDP’s, India has taken the safe haven of a generally performative humanitarian upper hand to the problem of displacement. With reference to India law, violation of human rights, much of which find their place in the Fundamental Rights bestowed by the Constitution of India, is a logical precursor to the existence of IDP’s. The idea of IDP’s inherently carries within it the notion that human rights of these persons have been compromised due to their displacement. Therefore, finding legal recourse in the words of existing law of the land (such as Part III of the Constitution) will not be a tough nut to crack.
Nevertheless, this does not take away from the fact that from a developmental and accountability perspective, there is a requirement for a much more targeted identification of the problem and then pursuing it in terms relevant to the IDPs. This may be done by either introducing a policy on point or directly incorporating the Guiding Principles. Arguments in favour of a transformation based approach (the former) have been made. While that has been the general manner of application of IHRL standards in India, a national policy or framework that requires the determination of an IDP status may not be the way forward.
The last assertion can be taken to its logical conclusion through the example of medical reassurances and displacement in Manipur itself. A national policy may contemplate sustained and non-discriminatory access to national health schemes, even when one is displaced. However, given the distinctive geographical nature of violence in Manipur, the only designated hospital for the application of the scheme, is in Imphal, making it inaccessible for much of the displaced population. India’s diversity, in demography, communities and practices is far too varied for crises to look uniform throughout. Flexibility in national IDP instruments has been considered to be a minimum requirement in the Global Report on Law and Policy on Internal Displacement: Implementing National Responsibility (2025) (see p. 66). Thus, if anything, transforming the Guiding Principles to a National Policy with specific commitments is counter-intuitive to the protection and building agenda. In India, there are a few distinguishing factors (discussed below) that suggest towards the merits of the latter.
Lack of political will
The Government’s (both Central and State) handling of the situation was disappointing, to put it responsibly. In September 2023, UN experts (including Paula Gaviria Betancur, the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of internally displaced persons) raised alarm over continuing human right abuses in the north eastern state. Similar to past flags raised by UN experts, this landed on deaf ears. Unfortunately, what did bring national leaders to ultimately break their silence was the widespread dissemination of a video of two Kuki-women being paraded naked, as if the violence prior to this was not a sufficient call for action. The blind eye towards the situation is evident from the late (and might I take the liberty of saying ‘face-saving’) attention that it was given. Critically, this attention came too little too late, post displacement of thousands in the area.
On the matter of IDP’s in general, the Indian legislation has not shown great fervor in adopting a national law on point. Aside from the fact that we might be able to use this inaction to our benefit, the legislation’s work on the matter has been scarce and motivation even less so. The proposed Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill, 2005 was never passed and eventually withdrawn in 2014. Since then there had been no action until the introduction of The Rehabilitation and Relocation of Persons Displaced due to Climate Change Bill, 2022 which not only does not address all causes of internal displacement but has also not had any subsequent action on it.
Unique context
There are two frames of contextualization required- nationally and specifically (with reference to Manipur), with the latter being an exemplification of the former.
India’s diversity is not a novel assertion to make. Socio-regional factors play a major role in the application of any policy in India. With regards to matters of displacement it is unreasonable to expect a sense of uniformity in the causes, citizen response and consequences. For instance, given the geographical conditions and resource constraints unique to Manipur, the healthcare system of the states’ hills has been stretched inexplicably thin. Specifically contextualising the status of conflict-induced displacement in Manipur, firstly, though displaced, the persons are not out of the conflict zone. This means that not only have those persons not crossed ‘internationally recognised borders’, they have not crossed the borders of the conflict ridden state either (more than three quarters of the movement was within Manipur).
This implies that they continue to live in violence prone areas but are displaced from their habitual place of residence. Secondly and more crucially, while a part of such IDP’s were displaced due to violence, a significant part of these persons were refused access to their home by virtue of being present elsewhere in the state. Individuals who have been native residents of the hills were compelled to stay in the valley city of Imphal in camps for a prolonged period of time. This problem becomes worse in light of the geographical delineation that was created between the two opposing sides to this conflict.
Incorporative application of IHRL
With regards to international human rights commitments, states may either incorporate or transform international standards in order to make them domestically applicable. On the basis of the nature of the human right entitlement, a theoretical difference has been made to the end whether they carry immediate obligation or not (see paragraph 13 for details). There is a case to be made for the direct incorporation of the Guiding Principles in India. There are multiple stakeholders in the application of IHRL to the Indian context. While the Government’s lack of enthusiasm for transforming a policy on IDP’s is evident (refer to discussion on Lack of Political Will), a request for approving the Guiding Principles as they are and thereby making them India’s policy on point may not fall on entirely deaf ears. This is explained by the fact that one of the earlier Bills failed to see the light of day due to allegations of violating federal principles and its grievance redressal mechanism. While the other has been hanging in limbo given the use of legal jargon related to climate change, that is still very much foreign to India. None of these contentions carry forward to the present suggestion.
Direct incorporation has often been met with questions on the ability of the international document to self-execute itself- at this point it may be contended that an incorporation approach will necessarily allow for domestic clarifications on practical nuances. Though the Guiding Principles were formulated with the intent of practical application (see Introductory note by Mr. Francis M. Deng), given the diversity of instances as enumerated in the above section, legislative and executive do not stand barred. This simply means that the organs of government will be able to clarify the scope of applicability of certain provisions, if required. For instance, Principle 23 (1) of the Guiding Principles assures the right to education for all human beings. In India, the responsibility of the state will extend only till the end of enforcing Art 21A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, allowing for a clarificatory exercise by the organs will ensure flexibility and enforcement.
What incorporation does give us is a concrete set of commitments, detached from evolving partisan politics, that ensures the protection of IDP’s regardless of the circumstance and region they arise in. Additionally, the role of the judiciary (see p. 114 onwards) remains crucial as ever is ensuring compliance. It has been asserted that direct incorporation leads to strengthened commitments of rights which are directly with reference to the state. For instance, the Human Rights Committee, while not mandating incorporation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’) (General Comment No 31), takes the view that direct incorporation is preferred for the full realization of the rights contained in the ICCPR (General Comment No 31 at para. 13).
The conflict in Manipur is a case in point for why it might be better (and more plausible) for India to not formulate a distinct National Policy on IDP’s. A direct incorporation of the Guiding Principles will be more effective and comprehensive in addressing the problems at hand.
Anusha Verma is a fourth-year law student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab. She is interested in Public International Law at large and specifically in Critical International Legal Theory.
Picture Credit: Joseph Campbell/TheHindu
Jindal Forum for International and Economic Laws 