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.

Dhaka: Nearly six years after the Rohingya refugee crisis shook the world’s conscience, and with neighbouring countries responding to the humanitarian crisis, for the first time the WFP is forced to cut back its lifesaving assistance for all Rohingya living in the camps in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. Starting 1 March, WFP will have to reduce its General Food Assistance voucher value from US$12 to US$10 per person per month, due to a US$125 million funding shortfall says a press note of the organisation.

“This is a devastating blow to the Rohingya and an equally devastating blow to the humanitarian community,” said Domenico Scalpelli, WFP Country Director in Bangladesh. “With other critical services already dwindling, the repercussions of the ration cut – even if just two dollars – will be dire.”

Unlike other vulnerable groups, the Rohingya have limited employment opportunities in the camps, relying almost entirely on humanitarian assistance to meet their food and other essential needs. Bangladesh has been barely allowing them residence, that too in questionable conditions in segregated camps.

So far, with the support of donors and partners, WFP has been providing food, nutrition and other critical assistance to Rohingya men, women and children since their exodus from Myanmar in 2017.
Today all Rohingya – nearly 1 million of them – receive food assistance via vouchers currently valued at US$12 per person per month. Families can choose from over 40 dry and fresh food items at WFP outlets throughout the camps.

Despite these concerted humanitarian efforts, 45 percent of Rohingya families are not eating a sufficient diet and malnutrition has been widespread in the camps. The Global Acute Malnutrition rate for children stands at 12 percent – just below the 15 percent WHO ‘Emergency’ threshold but still categorized as ‘Serious’. Some 40 percent of children have stunted growth and 40 percent of pregnant and breastfeeding women are anaemic – all this is before the ration cut.

“With each ration cut, malnutrition will certainly rise. With each ration cut, families will increasingly resort to dangerous strategies to cope. Sadly, women, adolescent girls and children will be the worst affected. We must do everything possible to keep the vital humanitarian assistance they depend on intact,” said Scalpelli.

Without an immediate funding boost, further ration cuts to the blanket food assistance programme are also imminent into the year.
The UN’s WFP is the world’s largest humanitarian organization saving lives in emergencies and using food distribution in conflict-ridden societies as a way to build a pathway to peace, stability and prosperity for people recovering from these conflicts, disasters and the impact of climate change.

2017: Draconian treatment of Rohingyas in Myanmar

Human Rights Watch (HRW) had in December 2017 said that analysis of satellite images has found that Rohingya villages have been further destroyed in Myanmar’s Rakhine state during October and November. HRW said it has pinpointed 40 villages “with building destruction,” making the number of villages “that have been partially or completely destroyed” 354 since August 25, 2017. HRW said satellite images verify that several dozen buildings were burned in the same week as November 23, when Myanmar and Bangladesh signed a Memorandum of Understanding for the repatriation of refugees in Bangladesh. According to HRW, at least 118 of the 354 villages that were impacted were partly or completely destroyed after September 5, which Myanmar’s State Counsellor’s office said was the date when “clearance operations” ended. 

Background: Hate Speech & Rohingyas

Rohongyas, largely because they are economically deprived and Muslim have been at the brunt of not just physical exclusion and hunger as also the butt and target of hate speech, worldwide. In December 2021, Rohingya refugees from Myanmar have sued Meta Platforms Inc, (formerly and still better known as Facebook) for a staggering $150 billion. The community has alleged that the social media giant “did not take action against anti-Rohingya hate speech that contributed to violence.” According to a Reuters report, a class-action complaint was “filed in California on Monday by law firms Edelson PC and Fields PLLC.” It argues that the company’s failures to curb hate content as well “its platform’s design” have contributed to the on ground violence the Rohingya community has been facing. Reuters added that “in a coordinated action, British lawyers also submitted a letter of notice to Facebook’s London office”.

In response, Meta issued a statement: “We’re appalled by the crimes committed against the Rohingya people in Myanmar. We’ve built a dedicated team of Burmese speakers, banned the Tatmadaw (Myanmar military), disrupted networks manipulating public debate and taken action on harmful misinformation to help keep people safe. We’ve also invested in Burmese-language technology to reduce the prevalence of violating content.”

According to a BBC report, around 10,000 Rohingya Muslims were killed during a military crackdown in Buddhist-majority Myanmar in 2017. In the UK, the British law firm representing some of the refugees has written to Facebook, which the BBC reported, alleges that “Facebook’s algorithms “amplified hate speech against the Rohingya people; the firm “failed to invest” in moderators and fact checkers who knew about the political situation in Myanmar; the company failed to take down posts or delete accounts that incited violence against Rohingya; failed to “take appropriate and timely action”, despite warnings from charities and the media.

The report added that the US lawyers filed a legal complaint against Facebook in San Francisco, accusing it of being “willing to trade the lives of the Rohingya people for better market penetration in a small country in Southeast Asia.” Facebook posts that were featured in the Reuters investigation were cited in the complaint. A sample of one such post from 2013 stated: “We must fight them the way Hitler did the Jews.” The reported cited another dangerously anti-Muslim hate-mongering post that said: “Pour fuel and set fire so that they can meet Allah faster.”

According to the BBC news report, Facebook, which has more than 20 million users in Myanmar, had admitted in 2018 that it had not done enough to prevent the incitement of violence and hate speech against Rohingyas. An independent report, commissioned by Facebook, had reportedly said the platform created an “enabling environment” for the proliferation of human rights abuse. Over the years, thousands have been killed, and many Rohingyas have been forced to flee the country. The BBC recalled that in 2018, the UN accused Facebook of being “slow and ineffective” in its response to the spread of hatred online. According to the news report, “Under US law, Facebook is largely protected from liability over content posted by its users. But the new lawsuit argues the law of Myanmar – which has no such protections – should prevail in the case.”

UN points to Genocidal Intent since 2017

The United Nations has been pointing to the genocidal intent behind the forced expulsion of Myanmar’s Rohingyas since 2017, to little avail. Denied citizenship status and classified as illegal immigrants, Rohingya Muslims have been the target of repeated violence with state connivance in Buddhist-majority Myanmar. The continuing persecution has forced the Rohingyas to flee and seek refuge in neighbouring Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia. From Bangladesh, an estimated 40,000 Rohingyas have sought shelter in India. An approximate 40,000 or so such refugees are lodged in India but constantly face vilification and physical threat with the elections, twice over a rigid, far right regime at the centre headed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Vilification in India

A good example is the propaganda unleashed against them y high officials of the union government. The government even informed the Lok Sabha today, on August 10, 2021 that some Rohingya migrants have been “indulging in illegal activities, without specifying the said reports or the kind of alleged illegal activity.” This despite the fact that during the crisis in India’s capital with mass deaths, it was Rohingya refugees among dozens of good Samaritans who assisted in timely aid even cremations. The Minister of State in the Home Ministry, Nityanand Rai added that all foreign nationals who enter into the country without valid travel documents are treated as illegal migrants. His answer read, “There are reports about some Rohingya migrants indulging in illegal activities.”

Rohingyas have been facing discrimination, violence, fear of persecution in their home state of Myanmar, which is a Buddhist majority country, forcing them to flee. Known as one of the world’s most persecuted ethnic groups, almost 40,000 Rohingya refugees are scattered across different Indian states at present, out of which only 16,500 are reportedly registered with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

According to a report in Voice of America News, Hussain Ahmad, a Rohingya rights activist based on Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, has stated that the Rohingya refugees are being unfairly harassed by the Indian authorities. He said, “Indian police are asking for travel documents from these refugees who are on the run, scared of their lives. How will the stateless Rohingya refugees be able to produce Burmese passports or Indian visas?”

VoA News also quoted Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director of Human Rights Watch saying, “India knows well that the Rohingya are one of the most persecuted communities in the world. Nearly a million are refugees in Bangladesh. A few that have arrived in India need to be protected and not persecuted again. This is a responsibility of the Indian authorities under the refugees convention as well… For political reasons we find that the Rohingya are being targeted largely because the Hindu nationalist government….tends to persecute all Muslims, including Rohingya refugees.”

The recent Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 also does not provide any relief to Rohingya Muslims who have fled from Myanmar over the years, rendering them stateless.

In India, providing some succour to these refugees is a man from Kerala. Citizens for Justice and Peace had interviewed him in 2018.

Related:

40 Rohingya villages burned since October: HRW
A Ray of Hope for all Refugee Communities in India
“Genocidal intent” in Human Rights violations committed against Rohingya in Myanmar: UN
UN chief concerned over India’s plan to deport Rohingya Muslims
40 Rohingya villages burned since October: HRW

The post Cut in WFP funding threatens Rohingyas with hunger, deprivation: Bangladesh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Nine Rohingya refugees were arrested from a train in Tripura capital Agartala on Thursday, December 15, by the Railway Protection Force (RPF) it has been reported.

According to the police version, these nine Rohingyas, had “illegally entered Tripura through the porous stretch of Indo-Bangladesh border in Tripura”, and were held during a drive by the RPF for the detection of illegal migrants at Agartala railway station. 

Among the nine are five women and four men. “On interrogation, they could not produce any valid documents and later confessed that they were from Bangladesh and Rohingyas of Myanmar origin,” said Sabyasachi De, the chief public relations officer of Northeast Frontier Railway (NFR).

Those arrested thereafter were handed over to Government Railway Police, Tripura for further legal action, De said. “the RPF staff deployed at stations and trains are very vigilant and keep a close eye on illegal migrants and suspected persons,” he said. The detainees, according to the railway police statements, were about to catch a train for travelling outside the Northeast, in search of shelter and jobs, police said. 

Thousands of Rohingyas fled Rakhaine state of Myanmar following ethnic clashes between the ethnic Buddhists and Islamic Rohingyas since 1997. They have been taking shelter in Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh. Some of them have entered India through Indo-Myanmar borders in Mizoram and Manipur and India-Bangladesh border in Tripura. 

Related:

SC questions Centre’s decision to just leave minor Rohingya girl at the Myanmar border

The post 9 Rohingyas arrested at Agartala railway station by RPF appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has ordered the union territory’s administration to identify all illegal migrants from Myanmar and Bangladesh in its jurisdiction and compile a list within six months. This was in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that was originally filed in 2017 by activist Hunar Gupta, who is now the Deputy Advocate General of the UT.

Brief background

When the massacre of Rohingyas began in Myanmar, hundreds of thousands of them were forced to flee their homes, and seek refuge in countries like Bangladesh and India. In fact, even today, the largest Rohingya refugee camp is located in Cox Bazaar in Bangladesh.

India eventually admitted as many as 40,000 Rohingya refugees, as per official figures. These refugees were processed as per provisions laid out by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which is the UN’s agency dedicated to protecting and defending rights of refugees. They were given refugee cards and settled in various designated areas across India. One of the largest settlements is in Jammu. Today Rohingya refugees live in camps in Delhi, Rajasthan, Bengaluru and Hyderabad.

But just as the “illegal migrant” narrative has been increasingly drummed up in Assam to warn against an influx of “outsiders” from Bangladesh, a similar narrative is now being spun about “illegal migrants” from Myanmar. The right-wing ecosystem is already busy making as yet unverified claims of these refugees having acquired voter IDs and Aadhaar cards. In fact, even the PIL by Gupta alleges as much.

The Indian Express quoted excerpts from the PIL where it alleges that these so-called “illegal migrants” from Myanmar and Bangladesh “are suspected to be involved in various anti-national activities, including drug trafficking and hawala transactions at the behest of the enemies of the nation” and that “their stay was likely to result in the rise of pro-separatist and anti-India activities in the communally sensitive Jammu region that has so far displayed maturity and tolerance.”

The PIL had sought not only the ouster of these people from Jammu, but also withdrawal of any benefits extended to them.

The Court’s observations

The HC referred to a government order passed by the erstwhile state on May 24, 2017, wherein it had suggested constituting a group of ministers to look into various allegations surrounding migrants from Myanmar and Bangladesh. According to Indian Express the bench observed, “The group of ministers was supposed to take up the matter, examine it and to furnish a report thereof. But, till date, nothing has come on record,’’ adding that “in the meantime, the state of Jammu and Kashmir was bifurcated and UT of J&K created.’’

On April 6, the HC direct the UT’s administration to identify all such migrants and compile a list within 6 months. Meanwhile, Additional Advocate General Raman Sharma also reportedly accepted that the government “would evolve a robust mechanism” for the purpose of conducting such an identification exercise.

Are Rohingya’s facing institutional violence?

Meanwhile, Rohingya refugees claim that they are being watched, harassed and persecuted by Indian authorities. Recently, Sabber Kyaw Min, ounder and director of Rohingya Human Rights Initiative, was detained by Hyderabad Police. A Rohingya refugee himself, Min is one of the most respected leaders of the migrant community in India and is based out of Delhi. But on March 25, Min alleges, that he was not only picked up on baseless charges while on a visit to Hyderabad, but also prevented from contacting anyone for a long time. When he was allowed to speak to someone, it was with the police listening as the call was conducted on speaker phone. But what’s worse is that the moment Min complained about how he was being harassed, a policeman slapped him! Read his exclusive interview to SabrangIndia here.

Then on March 30, around 25 Rohingya refugees were rounded up in Ramban in Jammu and Kashmir, and sent to a holding centre. Min says, “They were part of two groups who were attending a Tablighi Jamaat event. After verification, they were sent to a holding centre in Hira Nagar in Kathua. All the refugees carry their valid refugee card.” He further shared that they had come from Narwal to Gool in two groups and headed to two mosques – Masjid Karara Sangaldan and Pangana Masjid Dar Mohallah Sangaldan on the evening of March 29, 2022. The men, aged between 17 and 72 years, were detained the following day and first taken to Maitra Hall in Ramban before being taken to the holding centre in Kathua.

NewsClick quoted a local police official as saying, “They have been sent to the holding centre as part of the procedure adopted by the Jammu and Kashmir government.”

Amnesty International condemned the detention tweeting, “The detention of 25 Rohingya refugees belonging to the Tablighi Jamaat in Jammu & Kashmir’s Ramban district is an abject dereliction of India’s human rights obligations and an egregious violation of international law.” It further explained, “Despite being home to thousands of refugees, India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention or the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees and does not have a domestic legal refugee protection framework.” Therefore, Amnesty International further explained, “The treatment of refugees falls largely under the Foreigners Act of 1946, which makes no distinction between asylum-seekers, refugees and other foreigners. The Act makes undocumented physical presence in the country a crime.”

Related:

Hyderabad cops detained me, slapped me, pulled my hair: Sabber Kyaw Min

We want to serve humanity: Rohingya refugees offer help amidst Covid

What will become of Jammu’s Rohingya refugees?

Rohingyas abducted, families attacked in Bengaluru!

The post J&K HC directs UT administration to identify and list all “illegal migrants” from Myanmar and Bangladesh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The massive flames can be seen consuming the fragile structures in a matter of minutes, even as a fire engine is heard in the background. The fire on Wednesday lit up the night sky at Ferozepur Namak village in Nuh, Haryana as it reduced the ‘homes’ of Rohingya refugees who had camped there. By the time dawn broke all that was visible were the ashes that remained. Scores of children and their families have spent the bitterly cold night and morning in the open. According to news reports the fire station in-charge of Nuh, Sahoon, said, “Three fire tenders were rushed to the spot and the fire was controlled within two hours. Prima facie, a short circuit of a wire in shanties is suspected to be the cause, but it is subject to investigation.”

Volunteers of Miles2smile foundation, an NGO who rushed from Delhi confirmed that the fire has gutted 32 shanties at the Rohingya’s Chandeni camp 2 in Nuh. It has rendered homeless over 100 people. They took woollen blankets, arranged drinking water, and food, and are now arranging to supply essentials to the families who have lost all their meagre belongings. 

Indian Express quoted Jaffarullah from the Rohingya Human Rights Initiative, confirming that as per eyewitnesses, people raised alarm and ran out in chaos. While no one was injured “102 people, including children, who stay in the camp have been displaced.” They were given “temporary accommodation in a school and nearby houses for the night”

However the organisation has confirmed that, “This is the third fire incident this year at a Rohingya refugee camp, following a fire incident in June in Delhi where 55 families lost their shelters and later in Jammu.” Volunteers helping with the relief efforts also wondered if there was a pattern to such incidents of fire in Rohingya refugee campsites. In June, a massive fire broke out at a Rohingya refugee camp in Southeast Delhi’s Kalindi Kunj. It reduced 56 shanties to ashes and left over 300 people homeless. 

According to news reports, the fire department officials stated that the Nuh fire was reported around 7:50 P.M on Wednesday, and while three fire tenders were sent to the spot, “all the shanties were completely gutted, as the fire spread in shanties made of bamboo and plastic material.” It has been reported that the district authorities said they will arrange “temporary accommodation for the displaced families”. The fire department stated that “prima facie, a short circuit of a wire in shanties is suspected to be the cause,” but added that this is “subject to investigation.” 

News reports quoted Shakti Singh, Deputy Commissioner, Nuh, saying that the administration had arranged for temporary accommodation for the affected families in nearby houses and shanties and arranged blankets and food. Singh told reporters, “At least 28-30 huts were completely burnt. The fire was doused and controlled in an hour. No loss of life has been reported. All 102 people living in the camp have been accounted for. We have made temporary arrangements for shelter for the affected families and distributed blankets, dry ration kits and arranged food. Some people are staying in houses across the road so they can retrieve their lost household essentials. We have stationed police personnel and volunteers at the campsite and an ambulance has also been stationed at the spot for contingencies.”

Important to recall that Nuh, is a communally sensitive area

Though not directly connected to the fire in the Rohingya camp, it is important to recall that Nuh, a district in Haryana in the region of Mewat is a communally sensitive area. Recent meetings called by right wing groups called “Hindu Mahapanchayat ” at Indri (Nuh), Haryana had Suraj Pal Amu of Karni Sena, who is Bharatiya Janata Party’s spokerman in Haryana, call Muslims, killers, accusing the community of targeting Hindu women and called for the crowds to “respond”. 

He justified the killings, especially validating the murder of 27-year-old Asif Khan. His family alleged he was abducted, asked to chant Hindu chants that had been turned into war cries by Hindutva mobs, and then beaten to death on May 6. His death had led to an escalation in communal tensions in the region. Amu’s hate speech against Muslims was received with applause by the large gatherings. 

On August 10, the government informed the Lok Sabha, that some Rohingya migrants have been indulging in illegal activities, without specifying the said reports or the kind of alleged illegal activity. The Minister of State in the Home Ministry, Nityanand Rai added that all foreign nationals who enter into the country without valid travel documents are treated as illegal migrants. His answer read, “There are reports about some Rohingya migrants indulging in illegal activities.”

He was asked questions by Lok Sabha members Ranjanben Dhananjay Bhatt and Sanjay Kaka Patil about the current situation of the Rohingya Muslims living illegally in various parts of the country along with the number of Rohingyas who are in the country with the United Nations refugee cards.In its written response, the MHA said that the Central Government has issued instructions to State Governments and Union Territory administrations advising them to sensitise the law enforcement and intelligence agencies for taking appropriate steps for prompt identification of illegal migrants, their restriction to specified locations as per provisions of law.

Related:

Rohingyas sue Facebook for $150 billion over failing to police communal hate speech

Gurugram: Hindutva groups disrupt namaz, 30 detained

Rohingya migrants involved in illegal activities: MHA

Anti-Muslim hate speech at Delhi rally calls for communal violence

The post What caused the massive fire at Rohingya camp in Nuh? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Around  53 Rohingya immigrants, now detained at Hiranagar sub-jail in Kathua district, have tested positive for Covid-19, stated news reports. There are a total of 222 Rohingya at the prison. Kathua Chief Medical Officer (CMO) Dr Ashok Choudhary told the media that these 53 inmates were found Covid-positive during a three-day testing drive at the centre. They have now been isolated within the holding centre in separate barracks. “For now they are all fine,” said Dr Choudhary.

According to the CMO “Some among them have Covid symptoms and remaining are asymptomatic,” and he claimed that they are “all normal” and that “the doctors are regularly checking on them,” reported Hindustan Times. The prison has been sanitised, officials and other inmates will also be tested. However, that was to be done on Wednesday and Thursday, but no updates seem to have been reported yet. Dr Choudhary told the media that “authorities will have to wait for Covid tests of all”. 

Meanwhile, the HT reported that according to a prison official,“58 of them above the age of 45 years have already been vaccinated. We have 222 inmates in the holding centre.”

However, 53 testing positive in a confined “holding centre” at a sub-jail is an issue of concern. According to a report in the Indian Express there are nearly 220 Rohingyas housed here after they were detained from Jammu during a verification drive. The officials at the centre told the media that the infection seems to have spread through minors who were reunited with their mother inside the centre a month ago.

The Greater Kashmir news portal reported that according to officials, it was at a routine medical check-up of the Rohingyas at the holding centre at Hiranagar, the doctor recommended Covid-19 sampling of two foreigners. Rapid Antigen Test (RAT) was conducted and both Rohingyas tested positive. More samples were tested by the Health department taking RAT samples and 53 Rohingyas tested positive for Covid-19. Meanwhile, at least 37 inmates have also tested positive during RT-PCR sampling at district jail Kathua, reported GK. These tests of inmates were conducted up to May 25. According to the report while the others are asymptomatic, one inmate is a diabetic and therefore, has been admitted in the hospital. The report added that after samples of the staff of Kathua Jail were tested, “a barber and a constable tested positive” they have since been isolated.

On May 17, in a bid to decongest prisons, the Jammu and Kashmir High Powered Committee (HPC) passed directions for releasing prisoners except those involved in militancy related cases and other serious crimes. The HPC headed by Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey has decided to release all convicts who were released as per last year’s directives for 90 days. The HPC will also consider the category of prisoners who are eligible to be released as per the Supreme Court’s directives. The HPC directed the jail authorities to ensure that inmates and staff wear masks and maintain social distancing, and that frequently visited areas like kitchen, bathrooms etc. be kept hygienic to prevent the spread of Covid-19.

Related:

Covid-19: Why has J&K sent its prisoners to jails in “worse-off states”?
J & K: Prior approval for oxygen supply, gag order on doctors speaking to media
J&K admin terminates gov’t employees in interest of “security of the state”

The post 53 Rohingyas test positive at Kathua jail facility appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A total of 45 people of Myanmarese origin have been caught crossing illegally into India in just the last two months! During the latest round of arrests, 10 people including five minors and two women were detained on board the Delhi-bound Rajdhani special train, reported The Sentinel.

The Rohingya migrants 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.” 

This incident is almost identical to the arrest of 14 Rohingya migrants, including eight women, who were also caught on board the Rajdhani in November last year. They had boarded the train at Badarpur and were travelling under assumed identities.

The fresh round of arrests in Tripura comes close on the heels of the arrest of two refugees identified as Hamid Hussain (23) and Nabi Hussain (22) in New Delhi on Sunday. They were caught along with a man named Muhammed Umo who claims to be a “refugee coordinator”. The two refugees allegedly entered India from Bangladesh on November 1, 2020, and were working as daily-wage labourers. Two other separate FIRs were lodged against six Rohingyas in Pratapganj, and seven Rohingyas in Uttam Nagar as per a report by India Today.  

All the arrested illegal migrants and refugees have been booked under various provisions of the Foreigners Act.

Related:

Rohingyas abducted, families attacked in Bengaluru!

Calcutta HC prevents deportation of Rohingya couple, wins hearts

The post Illegal Rohingya migrants arrested in Delhi and Tripura appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Fate has, no doubt, dealt Rohingyas a difficult hand. After barely escaping a vicious regime in their home country of Myanmar, many Rohingya refugees were trying to rebuild their lives in other places. Forty such families, comprising 60 men, 52 women and 13 children, have been living in Bengaluru’s Dasarhalli area for seven years, but are now facing another challenge.

Seven Rohingya refugees were abducted and many others assaulted at the settlement recently. Their valuables including Rs 40,000/- in cash as well as their mobile phones were also snatched away. The families have now approached the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) for help through the Law and Policy Research Institute (LAPRI).

LAPRI program director Zia Nomani has written to the Chief of Mission drawing attention to the harassment faced and assault on Rohingya families that live in the area. Nomani’s letter paints a grim picture as he recounts the shocking events, “The instant dispute pertains to a series of incidents that took place in October 2020. I have been informed that on or about October 27, 2020, about 7 individuals, namely Mr. Hilal, Mr. Masoom, Mr. Javed, Mr. Ali, Mr. Farooq, Mr. Kukan and one unknown person came to the Rohingya settlement at around 5 PM and demanded a ‘hafta’ or a regular fee as a license or permission for them to carry on the rag picking work in the area. At that time, reportedly, few Rohingyas were present and spoke with the above mentioned 7 individuals.”

Nomani further writes, “Mr. Anwar Hussain, Mr. Dilwar, Mr. Mohd Zubair, Mr. Abdul Salam, Mr. Mujibullah, Mr. Mohd Zakir, Mr. Mohd Farooq and Mr. Arif refused to pay any money as license to carry on rag picking work. It may be noted that the Rohingya community has been living in this settlement over the last 7 years and have not faced such an illegal demand until now. Upon refusal, all of them were brutally assaulted.”

Nomani shares how even the women were not spared, “One Mrs. Maryam, who is 6 months pregnant and other women including Mrs. Arfa Begum, Mrs. Ismat Ara, Mrs. Minuwara and Mrs. Senuwara were also assaulted. Mobile phones of victims, cash of Rs. 40,000/-, one gold chain, tarpaulin sheets and ration were stolen by the assaulters.”

LAPRI has urged the UNHCR to “intervene suitably with relevant authorities so that the harassment of the community stops”.

Nomani’s entire letter may be read here: 

LAPRI has helped the families file an FIR with the Amrutahalli Police Station. The FIR may be viewed here:

Related:

Calcutta HC prevents deportation of Rohingya couple, wins hearts
New documentary reveals scorched-earth campaign against Rohingya

The post Rohingyas abducted, families attacked in Bengaluru! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Amid the ongoing protests over the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), Union Minister of State (MoS) Jitendra Singh has said that the next step of the Central Government would be to deport the Rohingyas from the country.

Speaking at a function in Jammu on Friday he said, “The CAA is applicable across the country including in Jammu and Kashmir. By implication, what will happen is that the next move will be in relation to the Rohingyas.”

“Jammu has a sizeable population of Rohingyas and a list would be prepared and their biometrics would also be collected. They’ll have to leave India and details are being worked out. CAA doesn’t give them leverage. The government is considering ways to deport them,” he added.  

“They (Rohingyas) are not part of the six religious minorities in three neighbouring states. They are from Myanmar. So, they have to go back as they are not eligible for Indian citizenship under this Act,” he further said.

According to the Home Ministry, more than 13,700 foreigners, including Rohingya Muslims and Bangladeshi nationals are settled in Jammu and Samba districts, where their population has increased by over 6,000 between 2008 and 2016.

In 2017, the Central Government had filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court in 2017 describing around 40,000 refugees to be a “security threat” saying they must be deported to Myanmar.

Singh also said, “The CAA has been implemented in Jammu and Kashmir the day it was passed (by Parliament). There are no ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’, by implementation (of the CAA in Jammu and Kashmir), what would happen here is that the next move would be in relation to (the deportation) of Rohingyas,” Singh said at a function here.”

However, it seems that Singh is misinformed as even though the CAA has been passed by the Parliament and assented by the President of India, the Gazette notification is yet to mention a date from when the law will be in force. Once the date is notified, it is only then that it will be enforceable in all states and UTs including Jammu and Kashmir.

Related:

Calcutta HC prevents deportation of Rohingya couple, wins hearts
India’s 200 million Muslims could be affected by CAA-NRC: US report
Demolishing Human Rights in India

The post “Next step is Rohingyas’ deportation”: BJP MoS Jitendra Singh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Last time this year, many were hiding in the jungles across the border, fleeing a military crackdown
 

Photo credit: Dhaka Tribune/Reuters

Thousands of Rohingya refugees in the camps of Cox’s Bazar spent their first Eid away from homes on Wednesday.

The day was spent in prayer and remembrance of loved ones lost. This time last year, they were fleeing the violence in Myanmar’s Rakhine, running to Bangladesh for a safe haven. Many have lost someone, some have lost all. They came carrying what little they could, and some brought nothing but the shirts on their backs.

Eid-ul-Azha therefore, was a day of memories for the refugees. After the Eid prayers in the morning across the many mosques in the camps, most people broke into tears. Everyone prayed for safe return to their homes in Rakhine and lives of dignity.

Very few refugees received sacrificial meat, a key part of the Eid-ul-Azha observations.

Ayub Ali Majhi of Balukhali camp in Ukhiya said: “After the Eid prayers today, not just the imams, everyone broke into tears. We have lost so many people in Rakhine, parents, siblings, spouses.At least for their sake, something needs to be done.

“It has been almost a year since we came here. No international agency has been able to do anything towards our repatriation.”

Battali Rohingya Camp’s Majhi (leader) Mohammad Idris said: “One person donated a small cow for sacrifice for two of the majhis. We got about 80kg of meat from it and distributed it among the 400 families in this camp.”

Mohammad Ismail, another majhi from the camp, said: “Last year we could not pray on Eid-ul-Azha. We were in the jungles in the hills of Rakhine. We did not get any sacrificial meat, but I am glad that I at least got to pray.”

Mohammad Lalu from Balukhali Camp said despite the persecution they faced in Rakhine, they still felt love for their homeland.

“We want to return safely. That is what we prayed for today. This confinement has become suffocating. We cannot take our children anywhere. There is no entertainment,” he said.

Khaleda Begum, from Madhurchhara camp, broke into tears recalling her flight from Rakhine.

“I lost my father during the flight. This is my first Eid without him, and so far away from home. Why is Allah so unfair to us?”

Abu Taher, a young man from Kutupalong camp, said: “We got some meat from Qurbani, but people in Camp 1 C block got nothing. No NGO or agency distributed meat there.”

It was a rainy morning on Wednesday and the Rohingya Muslims attended their Eid prayers in the cramped, small mosques and then sacrificed the few animals that had been donated for them.

Ukhiya Camp In-Charge Md Rezaul Karim said: “The organizations working in the camps were supposed to donate sacrificial animals in sufficient numbers. We were hoping that each family will get at least 2kg of meat. But the organizations could not make it in time.”
Ukhiya UNO Nikaruzzaman Chowdhury said the number of sacrificial animals was inadequate for the number of refugees.

“We tried our best to provide, but the various organizations working here failed to follow through,” he added.

Cox’s Bazar Deputy Commissioner Md Kamal Hossain said: “We distributed meat among the refugees as much as possible. The district administration provided some and the NGOs working here provided more. But it was not sufficient.”
 

The post Bangladesh: An Eid of memories and tears for Rohingya refugees appeared first on SabrangIndia.