India’s Obligations and Challenges in Addressing the Rohingya Refugee Crisis
Challenges in Addressing the Rohingya.
The Rohingya, a stateless Muslim minority from Myanmar, are among the most persecuted groups globally. Denied citizenship and basic rights, they have been subjected to decades of violence and discrimination in their homeland. Over 22,500 Rohingya are currently in India, according to the UNHCR. However, reports by The Azadi Project and Refugees International highlight gross human rights violations against detained Rohingya in India, including poor living conditions and arbitrary imprisonment.
India faces the challenge of balancing its national security priorities with humanitarian commitments. While critics like Aaratrika Bhaumik point to India’s failure to protect refugee rights, the government justifies its stance by citing security concerns. This essay explores the complexities of India’s position, addressing legal obligations, humanitarian concerns, geopolitical interests, and the possible paths forward.
The Rohingya Crisis and International Legal Obligations
The plight of the Rohingya stems from systemic persecution in Myanmar. Denied citizenship under Myanmar’s 1982 Citizenship Law, they are considered the world’s largest stateless population. Fleeing violence and atrocities, millions of Rohingya have sought refuge in neighbouring countries, raising significant international legal concerns.
International refugee law, particularly the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, prohibits refoulement—sending refugees back to places where they risk persecution. Although India has not signed this convention, non-refoulement is recognised as customary international law. Furthermore, India is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which forbids deporting individuals to places where they may face torture or inhumane treatment.
Critics argue that India’s detention and deportation practices contradict these principles. Nevertheless, the Indian government asserts that its non-signatory status to the Refugee Convention absolves it of binding obligations. This legal ambiguity fuels the debate over India’s responsibilities toward the Rohingya.
India’s Constitutional and Judicial Framework
India’s Constitution offers strong protections for human rights. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and liberty to all individuals, including non-citizens. Article 51(c) urges the state to honour international treaties. Indian courts have often extended these principles to refugees, interpreting non-refoulement as part of Article 21. For instance, the Gujarat High Court in Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutai vs. Union of India (1998) upheld this principle, as did the Delhi High Court in Dongh Lian Kham vs. Union of India (2015).
However, judicial interpretations vary. In 2021, the Supreme Court upheld the deportation of 170 Rohingya refugees, prioritising national security over refugee protection. This ruling underscore the tension between legal obligations and government priorities.
Government of India’s Position
The Indian government classifies Rohingya as “illegal immigrants” under the Foreigners Act of 1946 and the Passport Act of 1967, enabling detention and deportation. Authorities cite potential security risks, alleging links between Rohingya and extremist groups, though these claims lack substantial evidence.
The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019 adds complexity. While the CAA provides citizenship pathways for persecuted religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, it excludes Muslims, including the Rohingya. This exclusion reflects both geopolitical considerations and the government’s focus on addressing non-Muslim persecution in neighbouring Islamic-majority countries. Critics argue that the CAA’s selective approach undermines India’s secular foundations.
Humanitarian Concerns and Criticism
Reports from civil society groups reveal dire conditions for Rohingya refugees in India. Detention centres are overcrowded, with inadequate access to education, healthcare, and legal aid. Families are often separated, and some detainees spend years in custody without a clear resolution.
India’s inconsistent treatment of refugee groups further fuels criticism. While Tibetan, Sri Lankan, and Afghan refugees receive long-term visas or refugee certificates, Rohingya face arbitrary detention. Critics, including Aaratrika Bhaumik, view this as a reflection of shifting geopolitical interests rather than a coherent refugee policy.
India’s Role in Regional Geopolitics
India’s stance on the Rohingya is shaped by its relationships with Myanmar and Bangladesh. While India has provided humanitarian aid to Bangladesh, it refrains from pressuring Myanmar on Rohingya rights, given its strategic interests in Myanmar’s infrastructure projects and regional stability.
At the same time, growing security concerns along the Bangladesh-Myanmar border, particularly due to non-state actors like the Arakan Army, necessitate stricter border controls. This regional dynamic complicates India’s ability to balance humanitarian and security concerns.
Path Forward: Balancing Humanitarian and Security Concerns
Addressing the Rohingya crisis requires India to strike a delicate balance between its security imperatives and its constitutional and international obligations. The crisis is multifaceted, involving issues of legal frameworks, detention practices, judicial oversight, and regional cooperation. Each potential solution comes with its own set of advantages and challenges, requiring a pragmatic and context-sensitive approach.
Comprehensive refugee legislation is essential to standardise policies for aligning India’s refugee policies with national interests and international norms. Such legislation would ensure fairness, protect vulnerable groups, and address security concerns systematically. However, critics warn it might strain India’s resources, especially in sensitive regions with socio-economic pressures. A phased approach, starting with clear refugee definitions, can mitigate these challenges. Collaboration with organisations like the UNHCR would strengthen the framework, ensuring its sustainability. This law would enable India to manage the Rohingya crisis more effectively, reducing arbitrary detention and deportation while safeguarding national interests and upholding human rights commitments.
Improving detention conditions for Rohingya refugees is both a constitutional mandate and a moral obligation. Ensuring access to education, healthcare, and legal aid can reduce resentment and minimise radicalisation risks. A phased approach that prioritises vulnerable groups, such as children and the elderly, could effectively address these concerns while balancing resource constraints, ensuring humanitarian goals are met alongside security needs.
Judicial oversight is crucial in upholding constitutional and international commitments to refugee protection. Courts can play an active role by ensuring executive actions align with non-refoulement and human rights principles. Establishing clear guidelines for humane treatment and periodic reviews of detention practices can safeguard refugees’ dignity while addressing national security concerns.
Regional cooperation is vital to addressing the root causes of the Rohingya crisis. India must work with Myanmar and Bangladesh to promote socio-economic development in Myanmar’s Rakhine State and create conditions conducive to voluntary repatriation. Strengthened regional collaboration can share the responsibility of hosting refugees, reducing India’s burden while fostering greater stability in South Asia.
Regional cooperation is vital to tackling the root causes of the Rohingya crisis. India should collaborate with Myanmar and Bangladesh to create conditions that enable the safe and voluntary return of Rohingya refugees. Supporting socio-economic development in Myanmar’s Rakhine State and working diplomatically to secure Rohingya rights can lead to lasting solutions. Partnering with neighbouring countries to share the responsibility of hosting refugees would ease India’s burden and foster regional stability. This strategy aligns with India’s economic and strategic goals, strengthening its position as a leader in South Asia.
By integrating these measures, India can balance its humanitarian obligations with security concerns. This multi-pronged approach reaffirms India’s constitutional values, strengthens its global standing, and sets a humane and sustainable precedent for addressing future refugee crises while maintaining regional stability.
Conclusion
The Rohingya refugee crisis is a significant test of India’s ability to balance national security with humanitarian values. While security concerns are valid, they must not overshadow constitutional and international commitments to human rights. By adopting a balanced approach that integrates legal protections, improved detention practices, judicial oversight, regional cooperation, and civil society support, India can address the crisis effectively. This strategy would reaffirm India’s democratic principles and strengthen its position as a global leader in human rights.
Subscribe to our Youtube Channel for more Valuable Content – TheStudyias
Download the App to Subscribe to our Courses – Thestudyias
The Source’s Authority and Ownership of the Article is Claimed By THE STUDY IAS BY MANIKANT SINGH
