Human Rights bodies express concern, appeal to follow constitutional and legal procedures
– Shahab Fazal
Lucknow
The recent incidents of the alleged forced expulsion of some Rohingya refugees from India – they were forcibly pushed into Myanmar or Bangladesh without in total disregard for national and international laws and norms – have shocked both national and international human rights organisations. Although the Supreme Court of India, during a hearing on an appeal on May 8, stated that if Rohingya refugees in India are considered foreigners under Indian law, the government has the authority to deport them i.e. send them back to their country of origin through legal means – and there is nothing wrong in doing so. Senior lawyers active in the field of human rights, Colin Gonsalves and Prashant Bhushan, pleaded with the court, arguing that the Rohingya minority is facing genocide in Myanmar and therefore, on humanitarian grounds, they have the right to stay in India as refugees. However, the court dismissed the claims of forced expulsion of some Rohingya individuals as unverified reports from social media and refused to grant any immediate relief. Further hearings on the matter are expected on July 31.
On the other hand, international and some national media also have confirmed the reports prompting United Nations experts to label the action as ‘inhumane’ and launch an investigation. They have also appealed to the Government of India not to treat Rohingya refugees inhumanely and not to send them back to the torturous conditions in Myanmar.
Some independent media outlets, after directly speaking with the relatives and contacts of the Rohingya refugees, confirmed that approximately 43 Rohingya refugees (some media outlets reported the number as 40), including children, women, and elderly sick individuals, were gathered under the pretext of biometric verification. They were taken to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, then transported by Indian Navy ships across the Andaman Sea to the Myanmar-Thailand maritime border. There, in the Tanintharyi region, they were given life jackets and set into the sea in the hope that they might reach an island within Myanmar’s border. Media reports indicate that these individuals did reach the shore alive but now face highly uncertain conditions.
Similarly, around 102 Rohingya refugees were collected from the detention centre located in Matia, Assam, and transported by bus via Tripura to the Bangladesh border, where they were sent into Bangladesh. The entire operation involving the Rohingya refugees in Delhi was completed within 24 hours. A similar process was followed for those sent to Bangladesh.
Bengali-Speaking Muslims Also Targeted
Following the terror attack in Pahalgam, actions similar to those against Rohingya refugees have also been taken against Bengali-speaking Muslims in various states of the country. In Rajasthan, 148 Bengali-speaking Muslims were treated as Bangladeshi nationals and subjected to action without any proper legal procedure, being forcibly taken to the India–Bangladesh border to be expelled from the country. The civil rights organisation People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) has condemned both these actions, calling them unconstitutional and illegal.
According to PUCL’s statement, 148 Bengali Muslims were detained from the Sikar and Kotputli districts and handed over to the BSF in Jodhpur. From there, they were taken to the international border in West Bengal. PUCL also referred to a statement by Assam’s Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on May 10, in which he claimed that 30 to 40 illegal Bangladeshi immigrants had been removed.
PUCL specifically cited the 1996 Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of Arunachal Pradesh vs. Union of India, in which the court declared that all persons in India – whether citizens or not – have the right to life and equality before the law. The organisation also referenced international law, to which India is a signatory, emphasising that India is committed not to carrying out mass expulsions without due process.
PUCL further stated that it has found evidence of legal violations in six detention centres in Rajasthan and has helped secure the release of several innocent individuals. The organisation has called for an end to all such actions and urged the government to follow proper legal procedures, ensure access to legal aid for the affected individuals, and refrain from targeting migrants through unlawful actions.
Difference between Deportation and Covert Expulsion
There is a significant difference between deportation and the covert expulsion of refugees from a country. Deportation involves a legal process, and the individual concerned is officially handed over by one country to the authorities of another.
Human rights organisations, institutions, and social activists have expressed anxiety and concern over India’s recent policy shifts regarding Rohingyas and alleged Bangladeshis. Their appeals sometimes succeed in securing relief from the courts or support from sympathetic governments. However, because the issue of Rohingya refugees in India carries a complex political dimension, they are no longer finding peace here either, especially in the current political climate.
It is noteworthy that the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has issued identification cards to Rohingya refugees in India, which the Government of India does not recognise. While India has not signed any international treaties concerning refugee protection, the country’s history is full of instances where it has allowed refugees to stay on humanitarian grounds and has respected traditional principles of international law.
Government Urged to Uphold Its Great Democratic Traditions
According to the international organisation Refugees International, approximately 22,500 Rohingya refugees registered with the UNHCR are in India. Human rights activists and organisations argue that Article 21 of the Constitution of India (the Right to Life) protects the fundamental human rights of such refugees. Although fundamental rights generally apply to citizens, the right to life is universal and applies to every person, whether citizen or foreigner.
In 2017, to escape genocide in Myanmar, hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslims fled to Bangladesh and various states of India. It is important to note that when the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) was enacted in India, protests erupted because it proposed granting citizenship to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians who fled religious persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan – but excluded Muslims. As a result, the situation for Rohingya Muslims in India became increasingly hostile.
Human rights advocates are left with no choice but to plead with the Supreme Court or appeal to the Government of India. They claim that the Government of India’s stance is antagonistic, and because the issue is politically convenient for the ruling administration, it is being used for political gain. A narrative has been popularised that Rohingya refugees pose a threat to national security and should be expelled from the country.
Public opinion in India has also been shaped in a negative direction. This is why whenever a sympathetic post about Rohingya refugees is shared on social media, or when videos and photos of their persecution surface, they are often met with hostile comments, abuse, and religiously charged mockery.
Rohingya refugees say they faced genocide in their Buddhist-majority homeland of Myanmar due to being Muslim, which forced them to flee. They are appealing to the Indian government for compassion. They hope that, just as people from other countries are allowed to live in India without citizenship as refugees, they too will be allowed to stay – honouring India’s great constitutional and democratic traditions.
In their appeal to the Supreme Court, Rohingya refugees have pleaded that the Government of India must not illegally push their people back into genocidal conditions. “As a great democratic nation governed by its Constitution and laws, it is India’s responsibility to act with compassion and uphold humanitarian principles, setting an example for other countries around the world and discouraging genocide anywhere on the planet.”
National and International Outcry Over ‘Inhumane Treatment’ of Rohingya Refugees
In a detailed statement, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) described the act of forcing 43 Rohingya refugees to enter the sea with life jackets as “illegal and inhumane,” calling it a violation of both national and international legal obligations.
According to PUCL, these refugees were taken to various police stations in Delhi under the pretext of collecting biometric data and were then allegedly held in a detention centre in Inderlok. From there, they were flown to Port Blair. PUCL President Kavita Srivastava called this so-called “pushback” policy a blatant violation of constitutional and international human rights norms and principles.
Shaheen Abdullah, Deputy Editor at Maktoob Media, one of the first outlets to report on the incident, stated that they published a detailed report on May 10, followed by a video report. He expressed hope that after these evidence-based reports appeared in international media, the Supreme Court might now show some leniency and compassion.
He also noted with satisfaction that the Supreme Court had directed the Government this past February to allow Rohingya children access to schools, and as a result, some children have now been enrolled in schools in Delhi. He added that in light of the recent appeal regarding the forced deportation of Rohingya migrants, the Supreme Court might soften its stance and issue an order to stop such forced expulsions.
The New York Times, Al Jazeera, South China Morning Post, The Diplomat, and Al Arabiya have all reported extensively on the incident. Responding to these developments, Tom Andrews, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, stated that forcing Rohingya refugees into the sea from naval vessels violates human dignity. He added, “I am seeking more information on these developments.”
Professor Salim Engineer, Vice President of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, expressed deep concern over the inhumane and forced deportation of Rohingya refugees. He said that, according to media reports, officials told the refugees they were being relocated to a safe country. However, when they swam ashore, they realised they had been sent back to the same country they had fled to escape genocide. He said that if this is true, it represents a tragic and shameful deviation from India’s constitutional and humanitarian principles.
Professor Salim further stated that the government must be reminded that India has signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which prohibits refoulement – the forced return of a person to a place where their life or freedom would be at risk. The International Court of Justice has recognised the Rohingya as victims of genocide. Thus, sending them back to Myanmar is not only against international law but also a failure of moral responsibility.
He urged the Government of India to immediately halt the forced deportation of Rohingya refugees, conduct an independent investigation into the abuses they have suffered, and bring those responsible to justice.
Professor Salim also appealed to the judiciary to take suo motu notice of this violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and ensure the protection of the victims.
Assam Chief Minister Defends ‘Pushback’ Policy
On May 10, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma stated during a press conference in Guwahati that undocumented migrants from Bangladesh and Rohingya refugees are being sent back under the “pushback” policy. According to him, the government has adopted this policy to return such individuals. Meanwhile, Bangladeshi media also reported that the Assam government and the Border Security Force (BSF) have sent back hundreds of undocumented individuals to Bangladesh. Among them, 78 were reportedly pushed into Bangladesh via the Sundarbans. This group included foreigners convicted under the Foreigners Act of 1946 who had entered India without valid travel documents or overstayed their visas.
Human rights advocates argue that indiscriminate actions in the name of targeting Rohingyas or Bangladeshis cannot be justified. They stress that the Government of India should differentiate between refugees fleeing persecution and other foreign nationals. Not all Bengali-speaking Muslims are necessarily Bangladeshi, and thus, the inhumane treatment and forced eviction of such individuals across different Indian states should be stopped. Furthermore, since the Rohingya Muslims fled to India to escape genocide, they deserve to be treated with compassion.
