Home Contact Us  

India - Articles

Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
#5372, 29 September 2017

IPCS Debate

India's Rohingya Policy: Is it Legally Sound?
Govind Manoharan
Advocate, Supreme Court of India

Violence in the Northern Rakhine state of Myanmar against the Rohingya has escalated in the last two months creating a large-scale refugee crisis in the region. India, which shares a 1643-km-long border with Myanmar, has recently taken a troubling stand on the issue as revealed by the statements of certain members of the present government, and its affidavit filed in the Supreme Court in a petition filed by two Rohingya Muslims. India has chosen to deport around 40,000 Rohingyas who have settled in its territory over the last many years on the ground of them being a potential threat to national security. While the Supreme Court is yet to consider the issue and the government has decided to wait till a final decision by the Court, the government's stand seems highly problematic under international law and the municipal regime. Its stand must be examined in the context of the applicable international law, and more importantly, India’s stellar record in dealing with past refugee crises in the region.

The Refugee Convention of 1951 and the 1967 Protocol enshrined the principle of non-refoulement, which has thereafter found recognition in various other international instruments. However, with considerable state practice the principle is now widely regarded as a fundamental tenet of customary international law. It could even be argued that it has attained the status of a peremptory norm (jus cogens) - those norms in general international law from which no derogation is permitted. One of the recognised exceptions to this principle is a reasonable apprehension of threat to national security. It is also widely accepted that non-refoulement must be elevated to the status of a human right to be protected regardless of the polity of individual nations.

Although not a signatory to the Refugee Convention or the Protocol (which now has 140 signatories), India is a signatory to various other instruments like the Convention against Torture, and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Conventions on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which recognise the principle of non-refoulement.

Even in practice, India has garnered an excellent reputation over the years by granting asylum to various persecuted groups that has fled to its territory, be they the Sri Lankan Tamils, Tibetans, Afghans or Burmese. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) representation in India has constantly provided support to the Indian government in dealing with the claims of these asylum-seekers, and as of August 2017, a Reuters report puts the number of registered Rohingyas in India at 16,500. It is in this background that the sudden shift in state policy towards the Rohingyas - which has baffled observers and the UNHCR itself, prompting a statement by it denouncing the proposed deportation - must be analysed.

If the statements in the affidavit filed before the Supreme Court by the government are any indication of India’s changed policy towards the Rohingya, what is revealed is that the government has taken a hyper-technical approach in claiming immunity from these principles (including non-refoulement) on the ground that it is not a signatory to the 1951 Convention. This pedantic approach is grossly erroneous because the non-refoulement principle has attained the status of customary international law and therefore has an elevated status much like a treaty obligation. Even otherwise, India is bound by the principle in view of its accession to other conventions that recognise it. To cite recent trends in Europe and the Americas where the principle has been watered down as evidence of diminishing state practice is descending into whataboutery. It can never be a justification for India to ignore its own state practice over the years.

India’s sudden departure in state practice towards the Rohingya is bad in law for the singular reason that it has not been necessitated by any fundamental change of circumstances. Moreover, the last two months have provided unmistakable evidence of persecution of the Rohingya, mostly civilians, and including women and children. In the wake of this humanitarian crisis, while trying to place itself as a regional power, India must lead by example to provide a regional solution to the refugee crisis, rather than escalating the issue with deliberate mass deportations. The deportations will certainly have the effect of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Furthermore, the affidavit filed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has wrongly fashioned the right claimed by the petitioners before the Supreme Court (registered Rohingyas) as being available exclusively to citizens of India, whereas long-standing precedent mandates that the protection afforded by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is available to all persons and not just citizens. Even though a comprehensive municipal legislation that covers the field of refugees is yet to be passed in India, various High Courts have recognised the right of an asylum-seeker as being part of their Article 21 right.

The government’s decision seems to have been largely fuelled by conjecture and claims that intelligence exists that many Rohingya settlers are being recruited for terrorism and insurgency-related operations within the territory. In the wake of speculation that the 2013 Bodh Gaya bomb attacks were in response to the violence perpetrated by the ultra-nationalist Buddhist majority in Myanmar, the Indian government may to an extent be justified in being more cautious in dealing with an influx of refugees from Myanmar. However, the UNHCR has itself commented that the national security exception is one that requires to be invoked with greatest caution. India as a sovereign state is well within its right to invoke the national security clause; however, the invocation must be analysed on its merits.

The question of national security and the case made for the deportation of the Rohingya must be seen as not just bad policy but a possibly discriminatory move. Apart from the general perception that the current dispensation is largely anti-Muslim, diatribe in favour of deportation of the Rohingya from various fringe groups that support the ruling party has also emerged in the recent past. However, even if the issue is strictly seen in light of the affidavit, it fails to provide any cogent reasons for a blanket deportation of all 40,000 Rohingyas settled in India - apart from sweeping statements on terrorism-related activities. Domestically, the impending assembly elections in West Bengal where refugee influx is a political issue could also offer some explanation for the sudden shift in the government's stand.

The question really is not whether the trappings of customary international law bind India to receive or to not deport Rohingyas as per the principle of non-refoulement, but whether the invocation of the national security exception is legitimate, proportionate, and absolutely free from malice.

Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
IPCS Columnists
Af-Pak Diary
D Suba Chandran
Resetting Kabul-Islamabad Relations: Three Key Issues
Can Pakistan Reset its Relations with Afghanistan?
The New Afghanistan: Four Major Challenges for President Ghani
Big Picture
Prof Varun Sahni
Understanding Democracy and Diversity in J&K
When Xi Met Modi: Juxtaposing China and India
Pakistan?s Tactical Nuclear Weapons: The Inevitability of Instability

Dateline Colombo

Asanga Abeyagoonasekera.
Sri Lanka: Moving Towards a Higher Collective Outcome
The Importance of Electing the Best to our Nation's Parliament
Sri Lanka: Toward a Diaspora Re-Engagement Plan
Dateline Islamabad
Salma Malik
Pakistan's Hurt Locker: What Next?
IPCS Forecast: Pakistan in 2015
India-Pakistan Relations in 2015: Through a Looking Glass
Dhaka Discourse
Prof Delwar Hossain
IPCS Forecast: Bangladesh in 2015
18th SAARC Summit: A Perspective from Bangladesh
Bangladesh in Global Forums: Diplomacy vs. Domestic Politics
Eagle Eye
Prof Chintamani Mahapatra
India-US: Significance of the Second Modi-Obama Meet
Has President Obama Turned Lame Duck?
Modi-Obama Summit: Criticism for Criticism?s Sake?

East Asia Compass
Dr Sandip Mishra
India-Japan-US Trilateral: India?s Policy for the Indo-Pacific
China-South Korea Ties: Implications for the US Pivot to Asia
Many ?Pivots to Asia?: What Does It Mean For Regional Stability?
Himalayan Frontier
Pramod Jaiswal
Nepal?s New Constitution: Instrument towards Peace or Catalyst to Conflict?
IPCS Forecast: Nepal in 2015
Constitution-making: Will Nepal Miss its Second Deadline?

Prof Shankari Sundararaman
IPCS Forecast: Southeast Asia in 2015
Indonesia's Pacific Identity: What Jakarta Must Do in West Papua
Modi in Myanmar: From ?Look East? to ?Act East?
Sushant Sareen
IPCS Forecast: Pakistan in 2015
Islamic State: Prospects in Pakistan
Pakistan: The Futility of Internationalising Kashmir

Looking East
Wasbir Hussain
Myanmar in New Delhi's Naga Riddle
China: ?Peaceful? Display of Military Might
Naga Peace Accord: Need to Reserve Euphoria
Maritime Matters
Vijay Sakhuja
Indian Ocean: Modi on a Maritime Pilgrimage
Indian Ocean: Exploring Maritime Domain Awareness
IPCS Forecast: The Indian Ocean in 2015

Nuke Street
Amb Sheelkant Sharma
US-Russia and Global Nuclear Security: Under a Frosty Spell?
India's Nuclear Capable Cruise Missile: The Nirbhay Test
India-Australia Nuclear Agreement: Bespeaking of a New Age
Red Affairs
Bibhu Prasad
Countering Left Wing Extremism: Failures within Successes
Return of the Native: CPI-Maoist in Kerala
The Rising Civilian Costs of the State-Vs-Extremists Conflict

Regional Economy
Amita Batra
India and the APEC
IPCS Forecast: South Asian Regional Integration
South Asia: Rupee Regionalisation and Intra-regional Trade Enhancement
South Asian Dialectic
PR Chari
Resuming the Indo-Pak Dialogue: Evolving a New Focus
Defence Management in India: An Agenda for Parrikar
Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan: Implications for Asian Security

Spotlight West Asia
Amb Ranjit Gupta
Prime Minister Modi Finally Begins His Interaction with West Asia*
A Potential Indian Role in West Asia?
US-GCC Summit: More Hype than Substance
Strategic Space
Manpreet Sethi
India-Russia Nuclear Vision Statement: See that it Delivers
Global Nuclear Disarmament: The Humanitarian Consequences Route
Nasr: Dangers of Pakistan's Short Range Ballistic Missile

The Strategist
Vice Admiral Vijay Shankar
Jihadi Aggression and Nuclear Deterrence
The Blight of Ambiguity
Falun Gong: The Fear Within

OTHER REGULAR contributors
Gurmeet Kanwal
Harun ur Rashid
N Manoharan
Wasbir Hussain
Rana Banerji
N Manoharan

Ruhee Neog
Teshu Singh
Aparupa Bhattacherjee
Roomana Hukil
Aparupa Bhattacherjee


Browse by Publications

Issue Briefs 
Special Reports 
Research Papers 
Seminar Reports 
Conference Reports 

Browse by Region/Countries

East Asia 
South Asia 
Southeast Asia 
US & South Asia 

Browse by Issues

India & the world  
Naxalite Violence 
Suicide Terrorism 
Peace & Conflict Database 
Y! MyWeb
Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
Year 2018
 January  February
 2017  2016  2015  2014  2013  2012  2011  2010
 2009  2008  2007  2006  2005  2004  2003  2002
 2001  2000  1999  1998  1997

The Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS) is the premier South Asian think tank which conducts independent research on and provides an in depth analysis of conventional and non-conventional issues related to national and South Asian security including nuclear issues, disarmament, non-proliferation, weapons of mass destruction, the war on terrorism, counter terrorism , strategies security sector reforms, and armed conflict and peace processes in the region.

For those in South Asia and elsewhere, the IPCS website provides a comprehensive analysis of the happenings within India with a special focus on Jammu and Kashmir and Naxalite Violence. Our research promotes greater understanding of India's foreign policy especially India-China relations, India's relations with SAARC countries and South East Asia.

Through close interaction with leading strategic thinkers, former members of the Indian Administrative Service, the Foreign Service and the three wings of the Armed Forces - the Indian Army, Indian Navy, and Indian Air Force, - the academic community as well as the media, the IPCS has contributed considerably to the strategic discourse in India.

Subscribe to Newswire | Site Map
18, Link Road, Jungpura Extension, New Delhi 110014, INDIA.

Tel: 91-11-4100-1902    Email: officemail@ipcs.org

© Copyright 2018, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies.