Update: Hours after this analysis was published, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a statement, disowning the assertions made in the tweets by Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri. The MHA said that Rohingyas were illegal immigrants to be deported back. No EWS flats were being given to them. The full statement can be read here.
On the 17th of August, Modi govt Minister Hardeep Singh Puri took to Twitter to share details of a contentious decision that was bound to ruffle the feathers of their supporters and voters. Hardeep Singh Puri tweeted, saying that India respects and follows the 1951 Refugee Convention and therefore, it would be giving accommodation (EWS flats) and round-the-clock protection to 1,100 Rohingya ‘refugees’.
“India has always welcomed those who have sought refuge in the country. In a landmark decision all #Rohingya#Refugees will be shifted to EWS flats in Bakkarwala area of Delhi. They will be provided basic amenities, UNHCR IDs & round-the-clock @DelhiPolice protection”, tweeted Puri.
He further tweeted, “Those who made a career out of spreading canards on India’s refugee policy deliberately linking it to #CAA will be disappointed. India respects & follows @UN Refugee Convention 1951 & provides refuge to all, regardless of their race, religion or creed”.
The tweets give the impression that India, which has so far considered Rohingya Muslims as illegal immigrants are now warming up to the idea of treating them as refugees. It is pertinent to note that while Hardeep Puri says that India “respects and follows UN Refugee Convention 1951” and “provides refuge to all”, India is not a signatory to the UN Convention at all. Given that India is not a signatory to the UN Convention, it is important to understand that India is not legally obligated to consider any section as “refugees” even if they hold a refugee card.
What appears to be far more problematic is that Minister Hardeep Singh Puri, presumably toeing the official government argument, has connected it to the Citizenship Amendment Act, saying that those attacking India over CAA need to use this step to alter their stance. He says that those spreading canards over India’s refugee policy deliberately linking it to CAA will be “disappointed” since India accepts refugees regardless of race, religion and creed (as evidenced by the govt deciding to give doles to Rohingya Muslims, who pose a significant security threat).
Pertinently, while Hardeep Singh Puri has announced this step as a vindication of the government being magnanimous and accepting refugees beyond religious concerns, in 2021, the Ministry of Home Affairs, headed by Amit Shah, had a very different stated stand on Rohingya illegal immigrants. Responding to a question on the refugee status of Rohingya Muslims, posed by Sugata Roy in the Lok Sabha, MHA had responded by saying that India is not a signatory to the UN Convention of 1951.
“India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol thereon. All foreign nationals (including asylum seekers) are governed by the provisions contained in the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939, the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and the Citizenship Act, 1955, and rules and orders made thereunder. However, a Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) was issued in 2011 by the central government and amended in 2019 which has to be followed by law enforcement agencies while dealing with foreign nationals who claim to be refugees,” the MHA had said.
Nobody particularly knows what changed between 2021 and now, however, as far as CAA is concerned, giving amenities to Rohingya illegals, who pose a significant security threat and have been indicted of massacring Hindus according to Amnesty International seems to be a slippery slope that the government may not be in a position to arrest. Firstly, saying that we “respect and follow” a convention that we are not signatories to, will end up emboldening demands that we give refugee status, and then citizenship, to elements that pose a security threat – like all Rohingya Muslims, Pakistani sections like Ahmaddiyas etc. Secondly, the only justification needed for CAA is that India is a natural home for Hindus and therefore, the state does not need to accept Muslims to accord that legislation to Hindu refugees, persecuted in Islamic nations. The government certainly does not need to force demographic change in India, tilting it towards Muslims, simply because we need to appear “secular” to the world when the world is incapable of understanding the foundation of a civilisational nation as opposed to a pure nation-state.
Rightfully so, supporters of BJP and the current dispensation were livid at the decision of the central government.
Lawyer J Sai Deepak criticised the move saying that our security does not need to be compromised simply to justify CAA.
Some wondered why BJP was insistent on trying to get the votes of the Muslim community, when they know that it might never happen.
Others pointed out that Muslim nations also don’t accept Rohingya “refugees” but India seems to be eager.
This author herself was rather incensed at the idea of giving special amenities to Rohingyas, when even Bangladesh seems to have relegated them to a remote Island, cut from the mainland.
While several supporters expressed the same angst, there were some who started trying to make sense of this decision by the Modi government.
With widespread anger, this author reached out to certain sections of the Bharatiya Janta Party, in an attempt to understand the rationale behind this decision.
Unsurprisingly, there were sections of the BJP who saw more than met the eye in this decision by the government. The first clarification that was provided was the fact that the expenses for this decision would be borne by the Delhi Government and not the central government.
Secondly, an operative part of their rationale, was that Rohingya illegals are a menace in Delhi, primarily because they are impossible to track. They often get fake IDs and documents, therefore, it becomes impossible for the government to track them. There is a stay on their deportation by the Supreme Court, therefore, the government is in a tricky position.
This move essentially is one to ensure that the illegals could be congregated in one location and their movement can be tracked, by putting them under surveillance by the Delhi Police 24 hours a day. “It’s FRRO detention centre. They have UNHCR IDs. Cops will ensure controlled movement. You cannot deport them as there is SC stay. There is no control over their movement and activities in the camps. All expenses on Delhi Govt”, said the source in BJP who wishes to stay anonymous.
FRRO simply means Foreigners Regional Registration Officers. Per law, all foreigners (including foreigners of Indian origin) visiting India on long term (more than 180 days) Student Visa, Medical Visa, Research Visa, Employment Visa, Missionary Visa and Project Visa are required to get themselves registered with the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO)/ Foreigners Registration Officer (FRO) concerned having jurisdiction over the place where the foreigner intends to stay, within 14 days of arrival. However, all Business Visa holders are required to register themselves with the FRRO/ FRO concerned in case the aggregate stay in India on Business Visa exceeds 180 days during a calendar year. These foreigners are governed by (i) The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920; (ii) The Foreigners Act, 1946; and (iii) The Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939.
There are certain aspects of this explanation that need to be discussed specifically. While the sources in the party claimed that there was a Supreme Court stay on the deportation of Rohingya Muslims, that is not entirely true. In April 2021, the Supreme Court categorically said that Rohingyas can be deported to Myanmar after the due process was followed. In this case, Mohammad Saimullah vs Union of India, the Indian government had categorically stated that Rohingyas are a security risk, are illegal and therefore, India has a right to deport them. This was in connection with certain Rohingya Muslims from Jammu who had been recognised as citizens of Myanmar, accepted by Myanmar and were set to be deported. The court said that Rohingya from Jammu would not be deported unless the due process was followed.
In this case, one has to realise that illegal immigrants can’t simply be thrown out of the country. The source country, in this case, Myanmar, has to recognise them as their citizens and then India can proceed to deport them. The court says that if all procedures are followed, Rohingya Muslims can be deported. While the argument that there is a “stay on deportation by the Supreme Court” has no basis in reality, what the BJP could argue to justify their move is that it would be difficult to deport Rohingyas, given that Myanmar would not accept all of them to be their citizens. The government has in the past, deported several Rohingyas to Myanmar after they were recognised as a citizen of Myanmar by both countries. In fact, India deported Rohingyas to Myanmar as recently as April 2022, with the global Left nexus outraging against the move. Since there is no “stay on deportation”, using this as a justification to verbally ratify the UN Convention could pose problems for the govt in the future, as it would be used to demand refugee status for all Rohingyas who entered India illegally.
While their surveillance could be one of the aims of this move, the acknowledgement that India follows and respects the UN Convention could prove to be a slippery slope by the Modi government. Once that fact is acknowledged by a Minister, the demands that all Rohingya Muslims are treated as refugees would only grow, given that there is a global nexus that have made these demands in the past. What is also problematic is that in the Supreme Court case, this move could be mentioned as one that gives legitimacy to their demands, saying that all Rohingyas with a UN Card should be given housing and amenities by the central government.
The most worrying part, however, is that the Minister has gone ahead and used this step as one to justify CAA, which gives citizenship to persecuted minorities, including Hindus, from neighbouring Islamic nations. Accepting persecutors (Rohingya Muslims massacred Hindus in Myanmar) cannot be a precursor to giving refuge to victims (Hindus).
The government in its wisdom seems to believe that these clusters could prove to be an effective way to track the movement of illegal immigrants and it is the better of the bad options available to them, however, the explanation used for it sends India down a dangerous path with serious ramifications.
