India’s Relationship to the Global Refugee Regime: a legal and historical analysis of the conceptualization of refugeehood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amidst the myriad viewpoints and perspectives that animate discussions on forced migration, the greatest challenge for academics and policymakers, continues to be the relevance and applicability of pre-existing international frameworks that were established to afford protection to people of concern, and the broader implications such challenges have on the global refugee regime.My doctoral dissertation is a study of some of the gaps associated with the global refugee regime and the historical development of refugee protection India, which remains minimally researched.The project identifies India as an alternate location of practice with respect to refugee protection.The dissertation also studies the notion of 'resistance' with respect to India's relationship to international refugee law mechanisms by pitting it against the existing global narrative of 'deviance' that has often been attached to states that are non-signatories of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.With the help of this study, my project will present the first steps towards a new place for discourse on forced migration research.With the help of detailed archival analysis, the thesis examines the subcontinent's practice of refugee protection that deviates from Eurocentric norms.The archival analysis demonstrates that several groups of people have sought refuge in India and the practice of extending sanctuary to such groups has essentially reconstructed refugeehood in India.The thesis provides first steps towards a cross-sectional model of refugee and forced migration research, which makes it crucial to not only move from the rudimentary definitions of a refugee, but also to identify alternate locations of practice.In summary, the thesis is a combination of exploring the 'cacophony of definitions' of refugeehood in India and an examination of look at how the refugee label has evolved over a period of time.Given India's disillusionment with the international refugee framework, the thesis explores the 'general perceptions and views' on refugeehood that 64 See Lanka Sundaram, 'The International Status of India' (1930) 9(4) Journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs 452, 455.65 File No.: C1435/331/Rr.401/001/9/33,Distribution of Nansen Stamp -India (30 May 1928).[League of Nations Archives, Geneva].This file contains a series of memoranda, and correspondence that took place between representatives of the Economic and Overseas Department of the India Office and the Nansen International Office for Refugees, on Russian Refugees in India.66 Dossier No 20A/22493/19255, 20 February 1936 (League of Nations Archives, Geneva).At the Imperial War Conference of 1917, India was granted special representation on an equal footing with the self-governing dominions and played an important role in various international conferences.See Sundaram (n 64) 454.67 Letter from Indian civil servant Badri Prasad Mital to The Right Honourable Edward Fredrick Lindley Wood, Baron Irwin of Kirby Underdale on the 'Proposed Settlement of Jewish Refugees in India' (16 January 1939), in Settlement of Jewish Refugees in India
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".