that the subjectivity of the migrant remained unruly, defying categorization, mixing up all kinds of flows and compositions, and remaining possibly the biggest question mark in the plan of reorganizing the global politico-economic strategic space. The rights of the migrants, in particular the victims of forced migration, becomes noticeable in this light. The responsibility on part of the governments to protect the victims and devising strategies of protection of those migrants rights then becomes a necessary corollary. The way in which the government wanted to stabilise the population flow as the humanitarian method, simplistically as a non-dialogic mechanism becomes important to analyse.Refugee flows are consequent to political and social reasons, redrawing of boundaries, Partition of states, xenophobic policies, minority persecution, civil wars, and foreign aggression. Without a proper understanding of these causes, durable solutions, the right to return, burden sharing in refugee protection, and the interface of human rights origins and humanitarian dimensions of refugee protection cannot be thought of.Internally displaced persons (IDPs) have gained prominence as a category of rights bearing subjects. Thus, even though forced by circumstances, government policies or government inaction/impunity, IDPs were not accorded the same kind of protection that refugees were. However it is not uncommon for internally displaced persons to call themselves refugees even while they are within the physical borders of the state. Thus, the unique features of this new reality needs to be highlighted by focusing on the relevant experiences of strategies of protection of victims of forced migration, particularly in the post-colonial world.Countries are encouraged to ratify the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees and the Protocol both by the UN and by refugee rights organizations. While holding a state responsible to a promise made at the international level is a better option for protection than arbitrary state action, historically international conventions have not known to be of any more assistance than the domestic legislations already in place.Against this backdrop the way post colonial societies have grappled with migration in comprehending the existing and accepted regime of protection of refugees, stateless, migrants and internally displaced needs to be reassessed. Does this understanding add to the discourse on forced migration? Should we not only ask yet again whether the existing regime of protection of refugees has failed, but also debate the ways in which the regime can be made more relevant for refugees, the primary objective with which it was created and for which it functions? Are there examples that allude to this fact of redundancy of the international protection regime or possibilities of protection without an international framework? These are few questions that the IASFM 14 intends to find suitable answers to.It is pertinent to consider the fact while dealing with the massive and mixed flows that, the borders, are not merely cartographic exercises of state formation but also of management of population and this is evident in the refugees people take to the high seas to navigate through porous borders to enter safer destinations. While borders remain crucial to the distinction between refugees, IDPs, stateless persons and people facing deaths due