After the government refuted a minister’s statement that there are plans to offer accommodation and security to the Rohingya minority in the capital, India’s refugee policy is again in the spotlight.
The government announced on Wednesday, hours after Housing and Urban Affairs Minister Hardeep Singh Puri’s tweet, that refugees would be confined in detention centers until they were deported.
Many members of Myanmar’s Buddhist majority view the Rohingya as illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. They began arriving in India in the 1970s, having fled persecution at home, and are now dispersed throughout the country, with many residing in filthy camps.
In August of 2017, hundreds of thousands of them fled across the border in response to a brutal army crackdown.
Human Rights Watch estimates that there are approximately 40,000 Rohingyas in India, of which at least 20,000 are registered with the UN Human Rights Commission.
Human rights organizations have criticized India for its efforts to repatriate migrants rather than offer them asylum.
Colin Gonsalves, a top attorney, told that Mr. Puri’s plan to offer accommodation for the Rohingya was “absolutely correct.”
He stated, “The Rohingya cannot be placed in detention centers because they have not committed a crime.” They are compelled to flee persecution and seek refuge here.
What is India’s approach to refugees? What is its influence?
There is no national policy or law regarding refugees in India. In a now-deleted tweet, Mr. Puri stated, “India respects and adheres to the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and grants asylum to all, regardless of race, religion, or creed.”
However, the country is not a member of international treaties such as the 1951 United Nations Convention and the 1967 Protocol, which safeguard the rights of refugees to seek asylum and prevent their return to life-threatening places.
According to experts, this leads to “ad hoc and arbitrary” treatment of refugees regardless of the office party.
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the majority of refugees and asylum-seekers reside in metropolitan India; 46% of them are women and girls and 35% are youngsters.
Suhas Chakma, director of the think tank Rights and Risks Analysis Group, warns that in the lack of documents, refugees arriving in India “may not have access to fundamental services like healthcare, education, and work.”
In camps, refugees who are recognized by the Indian government have access to education, healthcare, employment, and housing.
Nandita Haksar, a human rights attorney, stated earlier this year that UNHRC-registered individuals receive minimal protection in their daily life and are frequently denied residence permits by the government.
What does the law say about how to treat refugees?
According to Mr. Chakma, India does not have a system for refugees to seek asylum, and those who enter the country without a visa are considered illegal aliens under the Foreigners Act or the Indian Passport Act.
Article 21’s protection of the right to life and Article 14’s protection against the arbitrary misuse of authority is their only safeguards.
In 2019, the administration of Prime Minister Narendra Modi introduced the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which offers amnesty and expedites the path to Indian citizenship for non-Muslim “illegal immigrants” from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan.
However, the bill was severely criticized and sparked nationwide protests. Political parties, civil society, and Muslim organizations argued that the measure violated the constitution’s secular values.
In India, how are refugees treated?
The country’s ad hoc policy means that not all refugees receive equal treatment.
Mr. Chakma states that such judgments are based on geographical and political concerns of state and national administrations.
India supported Bangladesh’s 1971 independence war against Pakistan and accepted tens of thousands of Bangladeshi refugees.
Journalist Nirupama Subramanian noted that in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, Sri Lankan Tamil refugees were given a stipend and permitted to pursue employment. After the conclusion of the civil war in 2009, Tamil refugees might consult an agency like the UNHCR to determine if they desired to return.
After the 1959 failed anti-Chinese rebellion, India supported the Dalai Lama and Tibetan exiles who followed him into exile and sought asylum in the nation for many years. In 2018, following the Wuhan summit between Prime Minister Modi and Chinese President XI Jinping, the Indian foreign ministry discouraged government employees from attending events where the Dalai Lama or Tibetan authorities were present.
The relationship between the two nations, however, deteriorated after a confrontation over their disputed Himalayan border in 2021.
In January, when China voiced worry about Indian legislators attending an event held by the Tibetan Parliament-in-exile, Delhi deemed China’s remark “inappropriate.
Regarding the Rohingya refugees, the country’s 2017 decision to deport several men sparked international outrage.
Former federal interior minister Rajnath Singh maintained they were neither refugees nor asylum-seekers, but illegal immigrants.
Subir Bhaumik, an analyst at the time, told that the community had become “a favorite whipping boy for the Hindu right-wing to energize their support.”
Later, Tendayi Achiume, the UN’s special rapporteur on racism, stated that India risked violating its international legal commitments by returning the men to potential danger and that it was “a brazen denial of the refugees right to protection.”
What must India do to implement a fair policy?
Mr. Chakma states, “Successive governments have frequently referred to it as a matter of national security.”
In certain instances, the Supreme Court intervened to halt deportations when it determined that the deportees posed no threat or that their return would endanger their lives.
Mr. Chakma asserts that India requires a legal framework to allow refugees who enter the nation to register and receive protections against arbitrary detentions.
Mr. Gonsalves, who is also the founder of the Human Rights Law Networks, argues, however, that the legal basis already exists: the constitution protects the rights of refugees.
He adds that forcing Rohingya back across the border into Myanmar, where their lives may be in danger, would violate the constitutional right to life.
“A large number of Rohingya refugees are not being deported at this time due to a series of Supreme Court cases in which the court has ordered the government not to take hasty action,” he told.
In 1996, the highest court declared that Article 21’s protection of the right to life includes the principle of non-return for refugees.
Mr. Gonsalves emphasized that this applies to “citizens and non-citizens alike” within India’s borders.
He stated that the government merely needs to implement it.
