Examining India’s stance on the Rohingya crisis

Syllabus :GS 2/IR

In News

A recent study by The Azadi Project and Refugees International highlighted “gross violations of constitutional and human rights” regarding the detention of Rohingya refugees in India.

• The study revealed that many Rohingya refugees remain incarcerated even after serving their prescribed sentences.

Rohingya

• The Rohingya are an ethnic group, mostly Muslim, who live in the western Myanmar province of Rakhine.
• They speak a Bengali dialect, unlike the commonly spoken Burmese language.
• Myanmar does not grant them full citizenship, considering them as migrants from colonial times, despite their long presence in the country.
  • Rohingyas are excluded from civil service and their movement is restricted within the Rakhine state.

Concerns Regarding Rohingya Refugees:

• There is no standardized refugee policy in India, leading to disparate treatment based on shifting geopolitical interests.
• Rohingya refugees, despite being registered with the UNHCR, face arbitrary detention and criminal imprisonment, unlike other refugee groups such as Tibetans or Sri Lankans.
• The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 excludes Muslims, including Rohingya, from benefits given to other religious minorities.
• Rohingya refugees lack legal representation due to funding constraints and the revocation of FCRA licenses for civil society organizations working on their behalf.
• Detention conditions are appalling, with overcrowded and dehumanizing living conditions.

India’s Stand and International Obligations on Refugees:

• India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and other human rights treaties like the Convention against Torture.
• India uses the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Passport Act, 1967 to regulate the presence of foreigners and considers Rohingya refugees as “illegal migrants.”
• India is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which obligates member states to refrain from deporting individuals to places where they may face torture or cruel treatment.
• India has also ratified other international instruments, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which enshrine the principle of non-refoulement.
  • Though India has signed the Convention Against Torture, it has not ratified it, meaning its provisions are non-binding.

Supreme Court’s Role:

• India’s Supreme Court has upheld the government’s stance on national security concerns and rejected a plea to prevent deportations of Rohingya refugees.
• In the absence of domestic refugee law, the Supreme Court has used international conventions to safeguard human rights, as seen in landmark cases like Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1997) and National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014).
• The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution has been interpreted by some courts to include non-refoulement.
• The Supreme Court directed legal services to visit detention centers to evaluate the living conditions of refugees.

Suggestions and Way Forward 

• The Rohingya crisis is a stark reminder of the importance of human rights and the need for global solidarity in the face of humanitarian disasters. 
• It is crucial to continue raising awareness and supporting efforts to alleviate the suffering of the Rohingya people.
• There is a need to address its international obligations, particularly regarding the protection of refugees under customary international law.
• The recent study underscores the importance of creating a consistent refugee policy, providing legal aid, and improving detention conditions.

Source : TH