Refuge or a Prejudiced Rhetoric?: Comparison of the Anti-Asylum Practices followed in Europe and South Asia

This paper provides a comparative analysis of anti-asylum sentiments in Europe and South Asia, examining their impact on the treatment of asylum-seekers. While international obligations and human rights principles shape asylum policies worldwide, their implementation is influenced by domestic politics. The paper begins by outlining the global commitment to providing asylum and the pivotal role of domestic politics in shaping asylum policies. Anti-asylum sentiments, rooted in empirical evidence or subjective political perceptions, often permeate public discourse, sometimes escalating into "populist hysteria" fuelled by host country governments. In Europe, a common regulatory framework for asylum laws navigates challenges such as identity preservation, security concerns, economic strains, and uneven burden-sharing among member states. These factors contribute to the rise of anti-asylum sentiments, driven by both governments and the EU Commission. Negative perceptions of refugees are further exacerbated by media portrayal and political propaganda. In South Asia, where asylum laws vary across countries, opposition to asylum takes on different forms, primarily revolving around sovereignty concerns, internal conflicts, and cultural identity preservation. By comparing Europe and South Asia, this study identifies commonalities and differences in anti-asylum sentiment dynamics. It underscores the influential roles of politics, media, and public opinion in shaping policies and attitudes toward asylum-seekers. The research highlights the challenges faced by refugees and emphasizes the necessity of a nuanced understanding in addressing asylum processes in these regions.