The relentless surge of global displacement, driven by conflict, persecution, and instability, presents a profound challenge to nations worldwide. India, situated in a volatile geopolitical landscape, inevitably finds itself at the crossroads of these human flows. Historically, the nation has welcomed various communities fleeing distress, from Sri Lankan Tamils and Tibetans to, more recently, Rohingyas from Myanmar and Afghans. As India’s economic and political stature ascends on the global stage, its stance on humanitarian issues, particularly its treatment of those seeking refuge, comes under sharper focus. This growing influence carries an implicit expectation of heightened responsibility, yet recent judicial pronouncements and policy directions suggest a potential divergence from its traditionally magnanimous approach, creating a palpable tension between its global aspirations and its actions on the ground.

Previously, in Part 1 of this explainer which may be read here, the legal framework surrounding the deportation policy was discussed. In this part, it is argued that India’s response to foreign nationals seeking refuge or settlement must evolve beyond mere dismissal or chiding, especially when profound humanitarian and civilisational values are at stake. A more nuanced, principled, and empathetic approach is not only a moral imperative but also a strategic necessity for a nation aspiring to global leadership.

Two recent Supreme Court cases serve as critical prisms through which to examine this evolving landscape: the first, involving a Sri Lankan national whose plea to settle in India was rejected with the stark admonition that the country, with its vast population, cannot be a “dharamshala“ (a charitable shelter) for all; and the second, Mohd. Ismail v. Union of India, where the Court declined to grant interim relief to halt the potential deportation of Rohingya refugees despite grave concerns about their safety back in Myanmaar. These judicial decisions are not isolated events; rather, they may act as barometers, reflecting and perhaps legitimizing a broader national mood and policy direction that increasingly prioritizes security and resource arguments, sometimes at the significant cost of humanitarian principles and India’s long-cherished civilisational ethos.

The echo of “Dharamshala“: When Doors Seem to Close – the Sri Lankan national’s plea

The case of a Sri Lankan Tamil national, Subaskaran, starkly illustrates the tightening approach towards individuals seeking to remain in India on humanitarian grounds, particularly those with a security-related past. Arrested in 2015 for links with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and subsequently convicted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), his initial ten-year sentence was reduced by the Madras High Court in 2022 to seven years. Upon completion of his prison term, he was ordered to stay in a Tamil refugee camp pending deportation. Subaskaran’s plea to the Supreme Court to settle in India was rooted in compelling personal circumstances: his wife and children were already settled in the country, his wife was seriously ill, and his son suffered from a congenital heart defect. Crucially, he also expressed profound fears of arrest, torture, or worse if deported to Sri Lanka due to his past LTTE affiliation. This case thus pitted an individual’s dire humanitarian needs and fears of persecution against the state’s national security concerns, even after the individual had served his judicially mandated sentence.

The Supreme Court’s response was unequivocal. A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and K Vinod Chandran dismissed the plea, with bench famously questioning, “Is India a dharamshala to host refugees from all over the world? We are struggling with a 140 crore population. India is not a dharamshala to entertain foreign nationals from all over”. When counsel reiterated fears of persecution in Sri Lanka, the bench’s stark suggestion was that he could “move to some other country“. The “dharamshala” comment, emanating from the nation’s apex court, carries significant weight. It frames those seeking refuge primarily as a burden on national resources and population, a narrative that can easily overshadow if not trivialise individual humanitarian claims and the complexities of forced displacement. Such judicial rhetoric risks normalising a more restrictive and less empathetic public and administrative posture towards all foreigners seeking sanctuary, irrespective of their individual circumstances or the historical context of their displacement.

The ruling underscores an increasingly hard-line stance, prioritising “national security” and resource constraints over compelling individual humanitarian concerns, even when familial ties to India are established and credible threats in the country of origin are alleged. This is particularly striking given that the petitioner had already served a significant sentence under a stringent anti-terror law. Denying him the possibility of settlement with his family, despite fears of persecution, can be perceived as a form of continued jeopardy, extending beyond the judicial sentence. The “dharamshala” analogy, while perhaps intended to highlight population pressures, risks oversimplifying the multifaceted nature of refugee situations. It also appears to disregard the nuanced historical context of Eelam Tamil refugees in India, many of whom share deep cultural, linguistic, and ethnic bonds, particularly with Tamil Nadu, a state that has historically provided considerable support and shelter to this community.

The Rohingya Plight: A test of constitutional empathy – Mohd. Ismail v. Union of India

The plight of the Rohingya Muslims, fleeing persecution in Myanmar, presents another critical juncture for India’s humanitarian commitments. In Mohammad Ismail v. Union of India (2025), the Supreme Court refused to grant interim relief to halt the future deportation of Rohingyas from India. The petitioners had made grave allegations, including the forcible deportation of 43 Rohingyas – among them women, children, the elderly, and individuals with severe health conditions – claiming they were abandoned in international waters near Myanmar after being detained under the pretext of biometric data collection. They pointed out that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Court of Justice have recognised Rohingyas as refugees facing persecution. This case directly tests India’s adherence to the principle of non-refoulement – the customary international law principle prohibiting the return of refugees to territories where their lives or freedom would be threatened.

The Supreme Court’s response to these serious allegations was marked by pronounced scepticism. The bench, including Justice Surya Kant, characterised the petitioners’ claims as “fanciful ideas” and “vague, evasive, and sweeping statements” that lacked “prima facie material”. The Court questioned the authenticity of the claims, including how a Delhi-based petitioner could verify events allegedly occurring in remote maritime regions. When references were made to UN reports on the matter, the Court retorted, “People sitting outside cannot challenge our sovereignty”. This assertion of national sovereignty, while a fundamental tenet of international law, becomes problematic when used to deflect credible concerns raised by international human rights bodies regarding potential violations. It risks fostering an insular approach to international human rights obligations, potentially diminishing India’s stature as a responsible global actor. The Court reiterated its earlier stance that the right to residence is exclusive to Indian citizens and that foreigners found to be in the country illegally would have to be deported. The demand for “prima facie material” from petitioners alleging clandestine state actions against a highly vulnerable and marginalized group like the Rohingyas places an almost insurmountable evidentiary burden upon them. It is exceedingly difficult for individuals fearing for their lives, often in hiding or lacking resources, to procure court-admissible evidence of state-led covert operations, potentially weakening judicial review as a safeguard for fundamental rights in such contexts.

This judicial stance has drawn criticism, with some legal analysts describing the order in Mohammad Ismail as “peculiar” and reflecting a “dubious understanding” of domestic and international refugee protection, particularly when contrasted with the Supreme Court’s own history of progressive interpretations of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). The refusal to grant interim relief leaves the Rohingya community in India in a precarious position, continually vulnerable to deportation despite the widely acknowledged risks they face in Myanmar. The treatment of the Rohingyas becomes a litmus test for India’s humanitarian commitments, especially when viewed alongside policies like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which offers a path to citizenship for specific non-Muslim religious minorities from neighbouring countries, explicitly excluding Muslim refugees like the Rohingya.

Whispers of a civilisational ethos: India’s legacy of refuge

India possesses a long and often celebrated history of providing sanctuary to those fleeing persecution and violence. This tradition of offering refuge to diverse communities – including Jews, Parsis, Tibetans, nearly 10 million Bangladeshis during the 1971 liberation war, and numerous Sri Lankan Tamils – is deeply embedded in the nation’s cultural fabric. This historical generosity, rooted in ancient traditions of compassion and hospitality, was often extended despite India not having a formal domestic refugee law or being a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. This historical record stands as a powerful testament to India’s civilisational values and provides a benchmark against which current policies can be measured.

The recent trend of remarks and the non-transparent push-back policy adopted in Assam (this guise has also been largely directed at marginalised Indians), appear to strike a dissonant chord with this inclusive historical ethos. They suggest a potential shift away from a “shared burden” narrative, evident in past responses like the 1971 Bangladesh crisis, towards an “internal burden” perspective, where India’s own population and resource constraints are foregrounded as primary reasons for restricting entry or stay. While national security imperatives and the challenges posed by a population of 1.4 billion are undeniably valid concerns, the question arises whether these should entirely eclipse a deep-rooted humanitarian tradition. The selective invocation of this “civilisational ethos” also warrants scrutiny. For instance, the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) invokes religious persecution as a basis for offering refuge to specific non-Muslim communities from particular neighbouring countries, while other groups facing well-documented persecution, such as the Rohingya Muslims, and are met with a markedly different, more restrictive standard. This inconsistency suggests that the “civilisational ethos” might sometimes be instrumentalised or narrowly defined to align with specific political or ideological agendas, rather than being applied as a universal principle of humanitarianism, potentially leading to perceptions of discrimination.

The ‘Vishwa Guru’ paradox: Moral costs of a narrow vision

India’s contemporary aspiration to be recognised as a ‘Vishwa Guru’ – a world teacher or global leader – projects the nation as a source of guiding norms and principles for international relations. This ambition is often accompanied by invocations of ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ (the world is one family), an ancient Sanskrit phrase symbolizing universal brotherhood and global unity. However, these lofty ideals stand in stark contrast to restrictive or dismissive refugee policies. Reports of “push-in” operations, involving the forcible expulsion of alleged illegal migrants into neighbouring countries without due process, are particularly jarring. Such actions are inhumane, unlawful, and clear violations of international norms, create a significant credibility gap for a nation seeking moral leadership. The ‘Vishwa Guru’ aspiration, while intended to project India’s normative power, inherently subjects the nation to a higher degree of scrutiny. If a country claims moral leadership, its actions, especially concerning human rights and humanitarian issues, will be judged more stringently against its proclaimed ideals. Inconsistencies between proclaimed values and actual policies can easily lead to accusations of hypocrisy, thereby diminishing the very soft power the ‘Vishwa Guru’ concept seeks to enhance.

The social and moral costs of such a narrow vision are substantial. Beyond the immediate human cost for refugees denied protection – who are often condemned to live in precarity, face statelessness, or risk deportation to harm – there are broader repercussions. Such policies can erode India’s long-standing reputation as a compassionate nation and alienate international partners and neighbouring countries. Internally, if policies are perceived as selective or discriminatory, particularly on religious or ethnic lines, they risk fostering societal divisions and undermining India’s secular fabric. Furthermore, refugee policy can become entangled with geopolitical manoeuvring, where humanitarian considerations are subordinated to, or instrumentalised for, strategic foreign policy objectives, as hinted in discussions about “push-in” tactics being linked to regional power dynamics. This fundamentally taints the moral basis of any ‘Vishwa Guru’ claim, as true leadership should be rooted in consistent principles, not mere expediency. The moral cost is therefore not just external, in terms of reputation, but also internal, impacting societal values and the ethical foundation of governance.

Constitutional ideals vs. ground realities: Soft power at stake

The Indian Constitution provides a robust framework of rights that, in principle, extends significant protections to non-citizens. Article 21, guaranteeing the Right to Life and Personal Liberty, applies to all persons within India, not just citizens, and has been expansively interpreted by the judiciary to include the right to live with human dignity. Similarly, Article 14 ensures equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to any person within India’s territory. Furthermore, the principle of non-refoulement, though India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, is considered by many legal scholars and has been acknowledged in some court judgments as part of customary international law, potentially flowing from the obligations under Article 21. These constitutional and international legal principles offer a strong foundation for a more humane and rights-respecting refugee policy.

However, a discernible gap exists between these ideals and the ground realities faced by many asylum seekers and refugees in India. The clear distinction drawn between Article 21 (right to life, applicable to all) and Article 19 (right to reside and settle, applicable only to citizens) is strictly employed to deny foreign nationals the possibility of long-term settlement, even on compelling humanitarian grounds. Without a rigorous judicial definition of what constitutes adequate procedure in the context of refugees facing potential refoulement, Article 21’s protection can be significantly weakened. The absence of a dedicated national refugee law further exacerbates this situation, leading to ad-hoc, inconsistent, and often discriminatory treatment of different refugee groups. This disconnect between constitutional promises and practical application directly impacts India’s soft power, which relies heavily on its image as a democratic nation governed by the rule of law and committed to human rights. Inconsistent application of these core values inevitably tarnishes this image.

Charting a more principled path: Balancing interests with obligations

Navigating the complexities of refugee policy requires a delicate balance. Legitimate state concerns regarding national security, resource allocation, and population density are undeniable and must be addressed. However, in an increasingly interconnected world where refugee crises are often transboundary phenomena demanding collective responsibility, these concerns cannot be the sole determinants of a nation’s approach. Ignoring humanitarian obligations carries its own strategic costs, including tarnished international relations, a loss of moral authority, and the potential for regional instability if displacement is not managed humanely and effectively. A principled refugee policy, therefore, can be viewed not just as a moral duty but as a strategic asset, enhancing soft power and building goodwill.

To forge a more empathetic, principled, and globally respected approach, several key elements are essential. Firstly, the enactment of a comprehensive National Refugee Law is paramount. Such legislation would provide a clear, rights-based domestic legal framework, distinguishing refugees from other categories of migrants and ending the current ad-hoc system that breeds inconsistency and allows for wide executive discretion. This law should align with international standards, establish fair and transparent refugee status determination (RSD) processes, and clearly define the rights and access to basic services for recognized refugees. A clear domestic law would also serve as a catalyst for more consistent judicial interpretation of constitutional rights for refugees, strengthening the rule of law.

Secondly, there must be a consistent and robust application of constitutional protections, particularly Articles 14 and 21, to all refugees, ensuring their right to life, liberty, dignity, and non-discrimination. Judicial review in cases involving the fundamental rights of vulnerable individuals must be probing and sensitive to the power imbalances inherent in such situations. Finally, India must move towards nuanced individual assessments rather than relying on broad-stroke dismissals like group-based profiling. Fair, individualised RSD processes that consider the intersectionality of vulnerabilities are crucial. Ethical RSD, as highlighted in academic discourse, requires a steadfast focus on human dignity, fairness, and transparency.

Fostering a compassionate public and official discourse is vital. This involves reframing refugees not merely as burdens but as individuals deserving of empathy and protection, and potentially, as contributors to society. Engaging civil society organisations and NGOs, which often possess valuable expertise and on-the-ground presence, in policy-making and implementation processes can also lead to more effective and humane outcomes. Many of India’s refugee influxes originate from neighbouring countries; thus, a robust domestic policy must be complemented by proactive regional diplomacy aimed at addressing the root causes of displacement and fostering regional cooperation on refugee management.

India’s choice in an emerging world order

India stands at a critical juncture where its actions towards those seeking refuge will significantly shape its international identity. The current path risks diverging sharply from India’s rich civilisational ethos of providing sanctuary, undermining its constitutional ideals of justice, equality, and fraternity, and creating a jarring paradox with its aspirations of global leadership as a ‘Vishwa Guru.’

A more nuanced, empathetic, and principled refugee policy is not an indicator of weakness but a hallmark of mature and confident leadership. It necessitates a careful balancing of genuine national security and resource concerns with fundamental humanitarian obligations and international legal principles. Such an approach, grounded in a clear domestic legal framework and a consistent application of constitutional values, would not only uphold the dignity of those fleeing persecution but also significantly strengthen India’s moral authority and soft power on the world stage. The way India treats the most vulnerable at its gates is not merely a domestic concern; it is a profound statement about its national character and its vision for its role in the 21st century. The choice is stark: to be a nation that risks being defined by dismissive rhetoric and closed doors, or one that courageously upholds its legacy of compassion and justice, thereby truly leading by example in an emerging world order that desperately needs principled humanitarian engagement.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

Related:

India: A deep dive into the legal obligations before “deportation”

From Detention to Deportation: The mass deportations and detention crisis at Assam’s Matia centre

Restoring Citizenship, Rebuilding Lives: CJP continues its journey in Assam

Declared Foreigner, buried Indian: The tragic death of Abdul Matleb in Assam’s detention camp

A jumla or a concrete step? Assam CM’s announcement on Koch Rajbongshi cases raises more questions than answers

SC: Only 10 deported, 33 of 63 contest foreigner status from the Matia Transit Camp, Assam

The post Why India needs a National Refugee Law aligned to international law standards appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Indian, being the epicentre of the dynamic and diverse South Asia region, has been, in early decades after independence, a land for welcoming refugees from the region. India’s more recent responses to the refugee problems and its policy towards dealing with refugees that come into its territory from neighbouring Myanmar and Bangladesh has seen a significant shift and change. The recent Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 where discriminatory provisions of citizenship were provided for people belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community who faced religious persecution in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh (Islamic countries) -also highlights a shift in India’s policy towards refugees. Recently, a group of Kuki Chin refugees from Bangladesh along the Mizoram-Bangladesh border were met with Border Security Forces and the refugees were asked to leave the territory since their entry was not lawful.

It is in this overall context that this article provides an overview of India’s refugee policy. Since the interests, if not the rights of Refugeesis not just an crucial but an issue with international, cross-border ramifications, using the parametres set by international law is both useful and critical. Specifically, we need to understand the provisions of International law on Refugees that guide nations including India. In this connection, however it must also be noted that India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, or the 1967 Protocol Related to the Status of Refugees, and India does not have any national legislation that deals with the rights of refugees.

International Refugee Law Regime

The 1951 UN Convention on Refugees and the 1967 Protocol related to the Status of Refugees are the two prime pillars of the international refugee law regime. Both these international instruments echo some prime elements and principles of the refugee policy as should be followed by countries.

Refugees mean persons outside their countries of origin who are in need of international protection because of a serious threat to their life, physical integrity or freedom in their country of origin as a result of persecution, armed conflict, violence or serious public disorder. India’s conduct towards Refugees cannot be understood from a legislative point of view since there is none. However, different judgements and instances of how India has dealt with refugees can provide an overview, albeit a reductive one.

Principle of Non-Refoulement and other Elements of International Refugee Law Regime.

This principle under international human rights law, the principle of non-refoulement guarantees that no one should be re-turned to a country where they would face torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and other irreparable harm. This is enshrined in Article 33 of the 1951 convention. Apart from the principle of non-refoulement, there is also a principle of non-discrimination under Article 3 of the convention stating that no contracting party shall discriminate between the refugees on the basis of religion, race or country of origin. Article 31 of the same Convention also states that the contracting parties should not impose penalties on refugees illegally entering their territory from a country where their freedoms were threatened. The Principle of Non-Refoulement as enshrined in the convention along with the exception that refugees can be made to return if there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country- are jus cogens meaning that it forms a part of customary international law despite not being explicitly agreed upon by some nations. Therefore, at least for the principle of non-refoulement, India is already under a rather stronger obligation to follow than it is for the other elements of refugee law.

India and Refugee Policy

In an order in the case of  Mohammad Salimullah and Anrv. Union of India and Ors, the Supreme Court had to deal with the issue of releasing the detained Rohingya Refugees who were in Jammu and Kashmir to Myanmar.[1] The court stated the rights under Article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution are guaranteed to persons whereas the right not to be deported is enshrined in Article 19(1)(e) and therefore, the interim relief of release cannot be granted. Almost a month after this order by the Supreme Court, the Manipur High Court pronounced a contrasting judgement in Nandita Haksarv. State of Manipur, in which it laid down that some people who entered India, without due permission from Myanmar cannot be treated as mere illegal migrants but they should be treated as refugees and asylum seekers and should be allowed to travel to Delhi and claim protection from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees(UNHCR). The High Court also further held that far-reaching and myriad protections afforded by Article 21 of our Constitution would encompass the right of non-refoulement.^[2] On the fact that India not being a signatory to the 1951 convention, the court stated as follows:

“Therefore, though India may not be a signatory to the Refugee Convention of 1951, its obligations under other international declarations/covenants, read with Article 21 of our Constitution, enjoins it to respect the right of an asylum seeker to seek protection from persecution and life or liberty-threatening danger elsewhere.”

Through these two differing view by India’s constitutional courts, what emerged is that there is one, a difference in the interpretation around the fact that India is not a signatory to the convention and two, how that affects or obligates India and how it deals with refugees. In both cases, the government’s argument was vaguely around national security, reflecting the shifting attitude of the government towards refugees. In a morerecent development, the Supreme Court stayed the order of Manipur High Court, as the government informed the SC that the refugees who were allowed to travel to Delhi have become “untraceable”. Therefore, despite having pronounced that countries should follow customary international law, there seems to be an aversion to make the state follow the principle of non-refoulement, at the level of the Supreme Court.

On the legislative side, the government does not differentiate between refugees and illegal migrants. Both of these groups are governed by the Passport Act of 1967, the Registration of Foreigners Act of 1946, and the Foreigners Order of 1948. The Foreigners Act of 1946 gives the government the power to arrest and detain foreigners based on suspicion, and for not following the act. On the other hand, the Foreigners Order of 1948 allows the government to allow or deny entry into India for various reasons. Even though the government has a lot of discretion in how they regulate refugees in India, the popular notion is that the Indian government treats refugees with a humanitarian hand.

A report by the UNHCR in 2011 also stated that India largely follows the principle of non-refoulement. The report also highlighted the constraints on how the Indian government helps the refugees from Sri Lanka but is not able to be proactive in extending aid due to paucity of resources and a huge India population which is in dire need of basic resources.^[3]

However, that only seems like a partial reason. For example, recently there was an announcement made by the Housing and Urban Affairs Minister Hardeep Singh Puri that Rohingya migrants in Delhi will be provided low cost housing. The Home Ministry was swift to clarify, within hours, that there is no such arrangement and illegal migrants will be kept in detention centres till they are deported.^[4] This rather passive-aggressive treatment to the Rohingya muslims refugees has been a consistent phenomenon, that can be seen from the government’s arguments in the cases and the home ministry’s classification. UNHCR conducts registration and refugee status determination (RSD) under its mandate and 48,450 refugees and asylum-seekers were recorded to be living in India as of October 2022. At a decentralised level, since the refugees are not concentrated at one place, the humanitarian assistance to them or the lack thereof is more of a policy decision than an issue of scarcity of resources.

Conclusion

There are two aspects to India’s attitude towards refugees. One is on the legislative side, the other the executive side. Not only is there a lack of a comprehensive refugee law, there is also differential treatment given to different refugee communities resulting in discrimination. A third aspect, most crucial, is the judicial, where there is neither recognition of the principle (and commitment to) non-refoulement nor any other element of international refugee law as being applicable to India, resulting in closure of all avenues to refugees.

India has been accepting of multiple cultures and nationalities since the dawn of its civilization and to have an ambiguous policy now is a shift that does not match up to the name and might India has in the region. Dominated by the aggressive nationalist sentiment running high in the country since the Bharatiya Janata Party came to power in 2014, it is rather important for the courts to understand and interpret the right to non-refoulement, see it as an intrinsic part of Article 21 and not Article 19 since the very act of some refugees being pushed back to their own (home) country is in itself(poses a danger) dangerous to their life. 

The post Policy and jurisprudence, India’s refugee policy has taken a regressive turn appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Ministry of Home Affairs has revealed that it does not have accurate data pertaining to foreign nationals living in India, and therefore no way to ascertain financial burden posed by illegal immigrants. This is significant, as it could add fire to the entire debate surrounding “illegal immigrants” and “infiltrators”.

On July 20, 2022, during the ongoing Monsoon Session of the Parliament, Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament Subhash Chandra Bose Pilli had asked if India had plans to draft a refugee policy and if there was any estimate available for the financial burden placed by refugees (that he estimated to be 20,000 in number).

In response to his question, Minister of State for Home Affairs, Nityanand Rai said that there were existing laws that were sufficient to deal with foreign nationals. “India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol thereon,” said Rai shooting down the need for a refugee policy. He further explained, “All foreign nationals (including refuge seekers) are governed by the provisions contained in The Foreigners Act, 1946, The Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939, The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and The Citizenship Act, 1955. The existing laws for dealing with foreigners are sufficient to deal with refugees.”

With respect to financial burden posed by illegal immigrants Rai said, “Since foreign nationals claiming to be refugees try to enter into the country without valid travel documents in clandestine and surreptitious manner, accurate data regarding such foreign nationals staying in the country is not centrally available. As such there is no estimation of the financial burden imposed by such foreign nationals.”

The entire answer may be read here: 

This last bit about financial burden posed by illegal immigrants is particularly significant, as those deemed “outsiders” are being dubbed “encroachers” in Assam, their dwellings razed by bulldozers. However, in most such cases, the ousted residents have claimed to be Indian citizens whose ancestors and families had migrated from other parts of the state due to soil erosion that is prevalent in the riverine region. But they face challenges on account of being Bengali speaking Muslims, as they are presumed to be Bangladeshi “infiltrators”.

In fact, two months after the Dhalpur eviction drive where firing by the Assam Police led to the deaths of two people – 28-year-old daily wage labourer Moinul Haque and 12-year-old Sheikh Farid, the Assam government told the Gauhati High Court that land has been demarcated to rehabilitate evicted and displaced people, however, their citizenship will have to be ascertained before confirming their eligibility. This once again painted the picture that the so called “encroachers” were not Indian.

Similarly, Rohingya refugees, even those who have valid refugee registration documents, have been allegedly targeted in different parts of the country. While reports of campaigns against allegedly illegal Rohingya refugees have been reported from Jammu, incidents of violence against them have been reported from Bengaluru and Hyderabad.

Readers would recall that in wake of the Ram Navami and Hanuman Jayanti communal violence, many right-wing groups, and even members of the Aam Admi Party (AAP) had squarely blamed “Rohingya-Bangladeshis” for the violence. This was used as a virtual justification for the bulldozer drive in Jahangirpuri.

Related:

Evicted families will be rehabilitated only if name appears in NRC: Assam Gov’t to Gauhati HC

Delhi: ‘Rohingya Bangladeshi’ taunts putting other Muslim dominated areas on the buldozer map?

Evolution of Bulldozer Injustice

Eye witness account from the broken heart of Jahangirpuri

The post No accurate data about illegal foreign nationals: Home Ministry appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Manipur High Court has directed safe passage of 7 Myanmar nationals from Moreh area to capital city of Imphal in the interim that the case is decided. The bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Lanusungkum Jamir observed that even if India was not party to the Refugee convention, Article 21 would be violated if these Myanmar nationals are forced to return to a country where they are liable to be subjected to persecution.

Nandita Haksar, the petitioner, had brought before the court the cause of 7 Myanmar nationals, 4 adults and 3 children presently under refuge at Moreh, Tengnoupal who wish to safely reach Delhi to seek protection from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

On April 17, the Court had suo moto impleaded Central Ministries of Home Affairs, Defence, and External Affairs. Meanwhile the petitioner sought interim relief in the form of making necessary arrangements to bring the Myanmar nationals from Moreh to Imphal in terms of the March 29 order of the Manipur Home Department which made it clear that the state was taking all humanitarian steps, including taking injured Myanmar nationals to Imphal for providing them aid

However, the Assistant Solicitor General, S Suresh relied on the March 10 letter issued by Central  Ministry of Home Affairs that steps should be taken to prevent possible illegal influx from Myanmar into Indian territory and to initiate legal proceedings against illegal migrants.

The court observed that it was conscious of the fact that India is not a signatory to the Geneva Refugee Convention, 1951, or the New York Protocol of 1967 but at the same time it is party to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and also the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The court held, “The principle against refoulement, i.e., the forcible return of refugees to a country where they are liable to be subjected to persecution, can prima facie be read into Article 21 of the Indian Constitution”. The court pointed out that protection afforded by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is not limited to citizens and can be availed by non-citizens also.

The court ordered that in the interim of the case being decided, the 7 Myanmar nationals be safely transported from Moreh to Imphal. The petitioner stated that she would accompany the Deputy Commissioner, Tengnoupal, to the location where these 7(seven) persons are in hiding so that they may be given safe transport to Imphal under appropriate escort and undertook that she would provide them boarding at her own home until then.

The court thus directed that state authorities arrange necessary security at the petitioner’s residence while the 7 persons are boarded there.

“Before they are brought to Imphal, the District authorities at Moreh are permitted to take these7(seven) individuals to the Senior Immigration Officer at Moreh for the purpose of noting their details and also obtaining their biographic and biometric particulars. Thereafter, they shall be brought safely under escort to Imphal and stationed at the residence of the petitioner/party-in-person under adequate security and guard till the next date of hearing,” the court directed.

The court has precluded authorities from taking any coercive action against them. The matter is posted for hearing on April 26 for the ASG to seek instruction from the Central Ministries.

Even as thousands continued to suffer in Myanmar amidst the ongoing military crackdown after the February 1, 2021 coup, India had sealed all entry points along its border with the country. On March 26, the Manipur government had issued an order that there should not be any camp to provide food and shelter to Myanmar nationals and no civil society group should not provide food and shelter to the refugees which was retracted amidst backlash and the subsequent order stated that the state government has been taking all “necessary humanitarian steps, including taking in some injured Myanmar refugees to the state capital Imphal for treatment.

The complete order may be read here:

Related:

Manipur Human Rights group resolves to help Myanmar refugees
It is not possible to grant the interim relief: SC on detained Rohingyas in J&K
Manipur: CSCHR says gov’t must protect Myanmar citizens facing persecution

The post Manipur HC orders safe passage of Myanmar nationals to Imphal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A minor Rohingya girl, a refugee from Myanmar, is set to be deported back to Myanmar, even as her parents are lodged in a refugee camp in Bangladesh. The 14-year-old girl was detained a few years ago and was handed over to a Silchar based NGO, Nivedita Nari Sangstha, reported The Assam Tribune. “The minor girl was handed over to the Assam Police by the NGO in the presence of the CWC. She was today taken to Moreh and will be handed over to the Myanmar authorities tomorrow,” sources told the newspaper.

She had requested the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to repatriate her to Bangladesh, instead of Myanmar, so she could be with her parents. However, her plea was not entertained. A Silchar police official said that repatriation protocol allows repatriation only to the person’s own country. Reportedly, since 2018, as many as 39 Rohingya nationals have been deported from Assam and currently there are 50 Rohingyas housed across Tezpur, Silchar and Goalpara detention camps.

This 14-year-old will be the first such Rohingya to be deported back to Myanmar since the military coup in the country.

The Civil Society Coalition for Human Rights and the United Nations recently issued a press statement urging that “it will be in the long-term national interest of lndia as well as larger cause of humanity to respect human rights of persecuted Myanmar nationals by opening up temporary camps in border areas and providing food, shelter, basic health care and other amenities”. It has requested the union government to offer asylum from persecution for Myanmar citizens despite not being a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention.

India has also sealed all entry points along its border with Myanmar to prevent refugees entering the country. Mizoram Chief Minister Zoramthanga said that deportation was not acceptable to the state and said that he understands that some foreign policy issues require India to “proceed cautiously”, but “we cannot ignore this humanitarian crisis”. 

In early March, nearly 170 Rohingya refugees were detained by Jammu Police for not having valid documents. Reportedly, around 5,000-6,000 Rohingya have set up camps at various sites on the outskirts of Jammu over the past decade.

Related:

Manipur: CSCHR says gov’t must protect Myanmar citizens facing persecution
India seals all entry points along Myanmar border
What will become of Jammu’s Rohingya refugees?

The post Minor Rohingya girl to be deported to Myanmar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Detained over the weekend, nearly 170 Rohingya refugees face deportation. They were detained by Jammu Police who will reportedly hold them for verification. According to news reports many more Rohingya refugees have now left their camps in Jammu, fearing deportation.

According to a news report in the Indian Express, around 170 Rohingya refugees were detained by Jammu Police on Saturday. These people reportedly did not have “valid documents”. According to  the IE, the police action was carried out while collecting biometric details of the refugees from Myanmar. Hindustan Times quoted Inspector General of Police (Jammu) Mukesh Singh as saying, “These immigrants were not holding valid travel documents required in terms of Section (3) of the Passports Act.” Those detained are now lodged at the Hiranagar sub-jail under Section 3 (2) (e) of the Foreigners Act. According to IGP Singh, “Their nationality verification will be done as per the prescribed norms,” adding that “the process to deport these illegal immigrants will be initiated.” 

According to the IE, around 5,000-6,000 Rohingya have set up camps at various sites on the outskirts of Jammu over the past decade. They have all arrived here citing “extreme persecution” back home in Myanmar, and the latest detetions have “triggered despair and anger.” On Sunday, stated the news report, a large number of Rohingyas marched from Narwal towards Mecca Masjid in the Bhatindi area, accusing police of asking them to step out of their homes again for verification. “If the Indian government tells us to leave, we will return to our native land,” Abu Ahmed, a Rohingya, told The Indian Express, adding, “But there should be no harassment there as we had fled Myanmar due to extreme persecution.”

According to the Hindustan Times, the verification process, which began at MA Stadium in Jammu on Saturday, and those who underwent it reported that the police collected personal information from them. “The officials sought details like my name, parentage, where I lived in Myanmar,” a woman identified Sabina told the HT

Another man, Mohammad Haroon, another Rohingya refugee, was quoted saying, they were all asked to reach MA Stadium with their families, and then “They took our details from the UNHCR [United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees] cards and also conducted Covid tests.”

The Print reported that “hundreds of refugees started leaving the relief camps fearing detention”. Abdul Rohim, who had been staying in a camp since 2014, told ThePrint, “We left the camps and started walking on the highway. We don’t know where to. We have nowhere to go. We can’t go back to our country [Myanmar].” According to the HT, journalists have been denied access to the stadium.   

Distressed #Rohingya refugees in Jammu, #India say they are fleeing from their camps out of fear of being detained and deported.

Earlier yesterday, approximately 155 refugees were detained including children and women. pic.twitter.com/jHi4wLg6sL

— Ro Nay San Lwin (@nslwin) March 7, 2021

As reported by SabrangIndia in January this year, 10 Rohingya migrants including five minors and two women were detained on board the Delhi-bound Rajdhani special train. They had boarded the train from Agartala in Tripura and were deboarded at the next station that is New Jalpaiguri station in West Bengal, where they were arrested and handed over to the Government Railway Police. According to Northeast Frontier Railways (NFR) Chief Public Relations Officer Subhanan Chanda, “The foreign nationals crossed over to India’s Tripura on January 10 from Comilla in Bangladesh and boarded a train from Agartala with the help of an agent. They had come from Kutupalong refugee camp located in Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh.”  These  arrests came after a few days of the arrest of two refugees identified as Hamid Hussain (23) and Nabi Hussain (22) in New Delhi. They were caught along with a man named Muhammed Umo who claims to be a “refugee coordinator”. These two refugees allegedly entered India from Bangladesh on November 1, 2020, and were working as daily-wage labourers. All the arrested illegal migrants and refugees have been booked under various provisions of the Foreigners Act.

On Sunday March 7, Bharatiya Janata Party’s Jammu and Kashmir unit chief Ravinder Raina was quoted by the IE, saying that the police action was taken following a request from Myanmar’s External Affairs Ministry to deport the Rohingya back for resettlement. According to Raina, “Anyone who has to leave his native land will certainly be happy to return home.”

However, at Kiryani Talab in Narwal on the outskirts of Jammu city, there are family members of those detained who are still waiting. The IE reported a heartbreaking story of four young children who do not know where their parents are. “We cried and fell asleep without having food. I still don’t know where they are or when they will return,’’ says Mohammad-ul-Hassan, 11, who is suddenly “in charge” of his siblings Jaibullah (8), Noor Hassan (7) and Asma Jan (4).

Related:

Illegal Rohingya migrants arrested in Delhi and Tripura
Rohingyas abducted, families attacked in Bengaluru!
Calcutta HC prevents deportation of Rohingya couple, wins hearts

The post What will become of Jammu’s Rohingya refugees? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Over half a century ago, when Chandrahar Das was a young man, he fled Bangladesh and made his way to Assam via Tripura. A refugee, he even obtained a certificate of registration. But all of that appeared to have been in vain, when he was arrested and thrown into a detention camp three years ago… at the age of 101! He died on December 13, 2020, at the age of 104, still asserting his Indianness.

CJP’s Cachar District Volunteer Motivator, Kamal Chakraborty, says, “He was old and had no memory and appeared to be in a delirium. Every time I met him, he would only say that he is an Indian and wants to vote for Modi!” He added, “Many times, Das would think that he was still in Tripura!”

When Das was first served notice, he was already at an advanced age, but was forced to work as a vegetable vendor to feed his impoverished family. But he had to stop working when his dementia, Parkinson’s Disease and heart condition intensified. The family scraped together their meagre savings to defend his citizenship before a Foreigners’ Tribunal (FT), but his deteriorating health prevented him from appearing or even submitting a written statement giving details and proving the authenticity of his documents. The FT ruled against him ex parte and Das was forced to spend three months behind bars before he was released on June 27, 2018.

The FT judgment may be viewed here: 

Chandrahar Das’s Refugee Registration certificate, and name in the Voters’ List may be viewed here:

Chandrahar Das passed away in Boraibasti in Assam’s Chachar district, leaving behind a 93-year old wife and a daughter Nyuti, who now faces the spectre of being declared foreigner herself by virtue of being the daughter of a declared foreigner. Das also has a son who lives in a neighbouring village.

Chakraborty says, “Both of Das’s children’s names were included in the 2018 draft of the National Register of Citizens (NRC), but excluded from the final list in 2019.” The family is extremely impoverished and lives on the kindness of neighbours and aid organisations.

The family lives in the Barack Valley of Assam which is home to many Hindu Bengalis. The community often faces accusations of being “illegal migrants” in a state where citizenship concerns have led to violence and bloodshed. Bengali Hindus are facing even greater opposition in wake of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) that permits the grant of Indian citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan. It may be recalled that the Assam Agitation that led to the signing of the Assam Accord was clearly against the alleged influx of all illegal Bangladeshi migrants, irrespective of their religion.

Das, even in his last delirium filled days, expressed hope that he would be declared Indian… but alas!

Related:

Excluded from NRC, Assam man flees, wife contemplates suicide!
Citizenship crisis death toll touches 107 in Assam!
Ailing septuagenarian being forced to appear before Assam FT!

The post 104-year-old ‘declared foreigner’ dies asserting his Indianness in Assam appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At least 35 Bru refugees were booked under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and Section 188 of the IPC (Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) for violating the lockdown, reported the Telegraph India.

The North district administration of Tripura has registered a complaint against the 35 Bru refugees for entering Tripura through a jungle from Mizoram on April 15 and April 16, even as the lockdown was in place. The Tripura police have now intensified their vigil and deployed more personnel along the Tripura-Mizoram border.

A senior police officer told The Telegraph, “A case has been registered against 35 Bru people under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. All the 35 Brus entered Tripura on April 17 violating the lockdown. They bypassed all checkgates and came through the jungles from Mizoram. When they reached their camp at Naisingpara, only then we came to know. They said they had approval from a local council of Mizoram which is not valid. We have put them under quarantine at Kanchanpur ST boys’ hostel of Kanchanpur sub-division of the North district.”

District Magistrate Raval H Kumar said that the refugees were screened, were kept under quarantine and were asymptomatic.

He said, “These Bru inmates are from Naisingpara Bru camp at Kanchanpur sub-division of North Tripura. They are migrant labourers working in Aizawl. Now they are under quarantine and we will take legal action against all.” Scroll.in reported that the police informed that the 35 refugees were put under quarantine at a hostel in Kanchanpur sub-division of the North district.

Covid-19 nodal officer, Dr. Deep Kumar Debbarma said, “We have collected some samples from the Brus. The results are yet to come. And the second patient of the state who was found in Damcherra of North district is stable now.”

The second patient of the state was found in Damcherra village of the North district which is very close to the Mizoram border. According to data from the Union Health Ministry, the state currently only 1 active case up until now, with one person having recovered and no Covid-19 deaths have been reported from the state.

In January, a quadripartite agreement was signed between the Centre and State governments of Tripura and Mizoram and representatives of Bru organization, Mizoram Bru Displaced people’s Forum, allowing some 35,000 Bru tribals who had been displaced from Mizoram, to settle permanently in Tripura. The Brus were forced to leave Mizoram after facing ethnic violence there had been residing in Tripura in six relief camps in Tripura.

The Brus, also known as Reangs, are spread over the states of Tripura, Mizoram and southern Assam. Brus of Mizoram converted to Christianity, while Brus of Assam and Tripura are mostly Hindu. In 1995, clashes with the majority Mizos, led to the demand that Brus be removed from Mizoram’s electoral rolls as they were perceived to be non-indigenous. This had led to an armed movement by a Bru outfit, Bru National Liberation Front (BNLF) which led to the killing of a forest official in Mizoram. This in turn to retaliatory ethnic violence which saw more than 40,000 Brus fleeing to Tripura where they were houses in six relief camps in Kanchanpur and Panisagar subdivisions.

Related:

Imprisoned on their boats along Guj coast
BREAKING: CJP helps in getting 9 people released from Assam Detention Camps

The post 35 Bru refugees crossover to Tripura from Mizoram amid lockdown booked appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As a consequence of partition of the subcontinent, (according to the 1951 Census of displaces persons), an estimated 72.49 lakh (7.24 million) Hindus and Sikhs had moved from western Punjab (Pakistan) to the Indian side and 72.26 lakh (7.26 million) Muslims had similarly moved from eastern Punjab (India) to the Pakistani. A new dimension was further added to this some 24 years later when an outburst of ethno-cultural contradictions in East Pakistan led to its dismemberment from Pakistan and the subsequent creation of Bangladesh in 1971. An estimated 10 million (10 lakh) Bengalis had crossed over to India as refugees to escape Pakistani repression during 1970–71.

In addition to these, several streams of refugees including Tibetans, the Chakmas from East Pakistan and later Bangladesh, Afghans, Mayanmarese, Sri Lankan Tamils, Bhutanese, Chinese, etc., have sought and been granted refuge in India at different points of time.

The case of the Chakmas:

In the 1960s, over one lakh Chakmas and Hajong refugees, Buddhists and Hindus, fled to India from the Chittagong Hill Tract area in the then East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), facing religious persecution. The areas where the Chakma-Hajongs lived was submerged following the construction of the Kaptai Dam. They were made to settle in the Tirap division of Arunachal Pradesh, then known as the North East Frontier Agency, administered by the Ministry of External Affairs through the Governor of Assam. Arunachal Pradesh became a Union Territory in 1972, which coincided with the formation of Bangladesh, and soon local political parties began protesting against the settlement of outsiders in the State. The agitation gained momentum in 1987 when Arunachal Pradesh became a State. (The Hindu, September 23, 2017)

While the above continues to be the dominant perspective, it is only half the truth. The persecution of Chakmas from erstwhile East Pakistan was more political than developmental. After India-Pakistan partition and the formation of East Pakistan, the Chakmas were subdued and disempowered progressively. Their ‘special status’ as a ‘Totally Excluded Area’ was lifted first, following it was an intentional settling of Muslims in the CHT carried out by the Pakistani Regime, they accomplished their aim of converting the majorly Hindu area, into an overwhelmingly Muslim dominated area. There were often violent religious conflicts for control over resources, with the toll taken by the indigenous Chakmas always. The Bengali speaking Muslims enjoyed the support of the Pakistani Government.

“I can now boldly say that I am also one of the freedom fighters. When Gandhiji visited CHT in 1947, I was a national volunteer of Indian National Congress. At that time I was a student of Class IX. Gandhiji and other leaders like Prafulla Ghose and J.P. [Jaiprakash Narayan] assured us that the CHT would be included in India in case it was partitioned. On 14 August 1947 we convened a meeting at Anand Vihar regarding the hoisting of the Indian national flag, which we actually did on 15th August 1947, assuming that we have been included in India. Within a week however, the Pakistani forces came to Rangamati and captured our area by declaring us to be Pakistani nationals instead. We did express our displeasure over this to Nehru and other leaders during several visits to Delhi. Suspecting our loyalty, the newly formed East Pakistan government started torturing us in order to drive us away from our land. We were forewarned that if we wished to stay on in CHT, we would have to embrace Islam or else there was no place for us there. Being Buddhists for generations together, how could we do that? On refusing to give up our religion, they forcibly started abducting and physically abusing our women and converted several of them into Islam. We were frankly told that they were not interested in us, but our land. Our problems got further aggravated with the completion of Karnafuli multipurpose power-project, which inundated a massive chunk of our arable land leaving us with no option, but to seek refuge in India. Even after more than fifty years of the partition, we belong to nowhere. We have become forgotten people.”

Sumoti Ranjan Talukdar

(Chakma Rufugee)

The facilities provided to the Chakmas for basic sustenance under the NEFA gave them hope of a better future. They were all issued valid identity certificates as well. However, When NEFA was made into Arunachal Pradesh, the State government insidiously started withdrawing these amenities and procurement of even essential services through PDS, public employment, land rights etc became extremely problematic. What is also revealed by their accounts is that they suspect it to be a multi-pronged strategy of the State Government since even procuring Birth Certificates is a problem for their community. This will adversely affect their claims to citizenship in the future.

It becomes clear thus, that the issue may have more facets than just their legal status. After Arunachal Pradesh was given its Assembly, the financial onus of wellbeing of the citizens shifted to the State Government from the Centre (as was under NEFA). The majority in the region did not want the scarce resources being shared amongst an increasing number of people. This helps explain how the Chakmas were gradually being out-casted from the public benefits they have entitlement to.

The Chakmas have been in Arunachal Pradesh for over 6 decades now, however, they continue to face hostility from the State Government and the locals. Looking at the situation from the perspective of the Chakmas (Deepak Singh, 2010), they do not regard themselves as refugees, firmly believing themselves to be Indians. The reasons for the same are twofold: the older generation insists upon the fact that they were issued valid migration documents, while the younger asserts its Indianness by the fact of their birth in India.  The Supreme Court had in its 2015 ruling asked the Government of India to grant them citizenship, since their claim to it was completely valid and legitimate.

However, their struggle continues as the order gained some traction in 2017, but was never complied with. The Narendra-Modi lead governments agenda to favour Non-Muslim Migrants was prevented by the State Government, which categorically refused to comply with the directive. The concerns sighted were natural, limited resources and a danger to ethnic orientation of the sparsely populated Hilly State.

“Will anybody tell us how much more suffering and humiliation do we need to undergo before we are made Indian citizens? We do not want to go to Bangladesh, for we would continue to be called refugees there as well, as we were born here in India. Moreover, we never feel attached to Bangladesh, as we have grown up here.”

Maya Shanti Chakma

(A Chakma Youth)

[Deepak Singh, 2010]

Stuck between hostilities at the local level, and lip service favours at the national level, the Chakma community’s plight seems never ending.

This points to an observation that the immigrants and refugees continue to live in fear and insecurity regardless of how long they have been in the country, or how socially and ethnically similar they are to its locals.

Formulating a National Refugee Law

As per generally accepted international norms, refugees are people who leave their country of origin to take shelter in any other country because of persecution against them on religious, ethnic, political, or other grounds. Leaving a country for economic reasons, as in the case of most Bangladeshis in India, does not qualify under this definition of a refugee. Hence this category of people needs to be treated differently. That is one reason the problem of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh requires the adoption and implementation of national legislation on refugees.

To assist South Asian countries in the development of domestic refugee laws, the UNHCR set up a five-member Eminent Persons Group (EPG) in 1994, headed by P. N. Bhagwati, a former chief justice of India, and comprising Justice Dorab Patel of Pakistan; Kamal Hossain of Bangladesh, a jurist and former minister of law; Rishikesh Shah of Nepal, a human rights activist; and Bradman Weerakoon of Sri Lanka, a senior bureaucrat. The EPG proposed model refugee laws in 1997 and subsequently came out with the South Asia Declaration on Refugees, which also incorporated the model refugee laws, at its meeting in Islamabad on January 24, 2004. In addition, in India the Asylum Bill, 2015 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on December 18, 2015, as a private member bill by Shashi Tharoor, who had earlier also worked in the UNHCR office in Geneva.

The model refugee laws suggested by the EPG, together with the asylum bill proposed in India’s parliament, could form the basis for the enactment of a national refugee law. A moot point, though, is that these draft laws seem to have been formulated from an activist’s point of view, where the focus is more on the rights and privileges of refugees and asylum seekers than on a country’s national security or the interests of local populations. Care needs to be also taken to ensure that concerns about these ‘illegal economic immigrants’ and their overall rights are balanced with domestic concerns. Identity cards and temporary work  permits are methods that have been devised by western countries. Furthermore, some reasonable restrictions should be placed on immigrants’ movement in sensitive areas, which the government may designate. Jammu and Kashmir, north-eastern states, and areas close to India’s border may, for instance, be declared out of bounds for refugees at least until they are fully integrated.

When domestic refugee laws are in place it will be easier to distinguish between genuine refugees and illegal immigrants. The two categories could, thereafter, be dealt with by separate sets of rules and procedures. In the case of refugees, there could be three possibilities: temporary work permits and identity cards if not voluntary repatriation to the country of origin, the granting of Indian citizenship, or resettlement in a third country. Illegal immigrants—a category that would include asylum seekers whose request for refugee status is rejected after due consideration—would then fall under the provisions of the 1946 Foreigners Act, which will need to be suitably amended to meet the new requirements.[1]

The post Witness the human consequences of forced migration through the Chakmas appeared first on SabrangIndia.

After becoming the first state to start implementing the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), even before the effective date of CAA was notified, Uttar Pradesh has gone a step further. Within a week, the state has identified 32,000 refugees who are staying in 21 districts in UP. It is pertinent to note that it has been only 3 days since CAA has become effective in India.

A 116-page report titled “Uttar Pradesh Mein Aaye Pakistan, Afghanistan Evam Bangladesh ke Sharnarthiyon ki Aapbeeti“ (The condition of refugees from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh in Uttar Pradesh) has been prepared by an NGO called Nagrik Adhikar Manch. Shrikant Sharma, a BJP Minister in Yogi Adityanath’s government has said that all District Magistrates in Uttar Pradesh had been instructed to collect data on such refugees. He also said that the identification process is a continuous one.

This report has been submitted to the Central Home Department and PTI quoted a senior Home Department official saying, “We have got the report of the Nagrik Adhikar Manch.” They have identified that refugees have been staying in districts like Sahranpur, Gorakhpur, Aligarh, Rampur, Pratapgarh, Pilibhit, Lucknow, Varanasi, Bahraich, Lakhimpur, Rampur, Meerut, and Agra districts. The report claims that Pilibhit district houses majority of these refugees.

Census data on migrants

Recently, migration data has been released by Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India. A brief analysis of this data indicates that while data on foreign migrants do not distinguish between a legal migrant and an illegal migrant, but such data is important indicator of the volume and pattern of overall international migration.

 If we compare foreign migrants who arrived in India during the two succeeding decades (1991-2001 and 2001-2011) then we find number of Bangladeshi migrants’ flow to India has declined from 2.79 lakhs during 1991-2001 to 1.72 lakhs during 2001-2011. Which means there is 50% decline in migrants’ flow to India from Bangladesh between the last two decades. Accordingly, there is sharp decline (25%) in the total number of Bangladeshi migrants in India, from 30.84 lakhs in 2001 to 23.04 lakhs in 2011. The proportion of Bangladeshi migrants in 2001 was about 60% of total international migrants in India, which has sharply reduced to 42% in 2011.

Similarly, number of Pakistani migrants has also declined from 9.97 lakhs in 2001 to 7.07 lakhs, that is a decline of about 29%.

If the official census data is to be believed, the influx of refugees from Pakistan as well as Bangladesh has considerably reduced until 2011. This data point, even if it does not discredit the number of refugees being claimed by UP, it raises questions on the claims being made by many in the BJP leadership that there are crores of Bangladeshi migrants in India. And if the number claimed by UP are to be believed it could also mean that a relatively fewer number of refugees remain to be identified from the rest of India, going by census data.

Related:

The post UP claims Pilibhit houses majority of the 32,000 ‘identified’ refugees appeared first on SabrangIndia.