By – Ayushmaan

Abstract

This piece examines the historical shift in the Indian Government’s approach to the rising refugee population in India with respect to recent security concerns from the neighbouring countries of India. History is evident; India adopted non-refoulement towards refugees. without any specific obligation, neither domestic nor international. The past decade presents India’s position as restricting refugees from basic rights and statelessness, forcing deportation. The Indian ministry has linked some of the terrorist and security attacks with the influx of refugees in India, which has exposed them to poorer living conditions and inhumane treatment to protect its border. However, this not only worsens the livelihood of the refugees, but also will affect India’s domestic growth and international reputation, which has already been receiving backlash in this matter for not being a state party to the refugee convention. 

Introduction

The Union government on 11^th March 2025 has also placed forward a New Immigration and Foreigners Bill of 2025, replacing the colonial era Foreigners Act and the other laws that covered the status of refugees in India until now to some extent. This makes us question the change in India’s approach towards refugees from an open and uninterrupted approach (to some extent, termed as non-refoulement) to a more deportation-oriented approach. This new bill only affirms a change that India adopted a decade ago, particularly after the CAA, when states began to revise their citizenship laws more rigorously. In the contemporary legal landscape, states such as Assam’s NRC and Bihar’s SIR have begun to strengthen citizenship laws with the support of the Union. Though the act does not explicitly state for deportation, but has evolved with stricter punishment and larger fines in contravention of the provision under which refugees fall. India is not a party to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, and remains without any domestic framework for management and ensuring the rights of refugees and asylum seekers entering India. India, in the mid to late 90s, opened its borders for Tibetan and Sri Lankan Refugees, but also did not stop taking in refugees from other neighbouring countries. This has led to confusion and statelessness amongst refugees, especially when neither India stops refugees from entering, nor deports them, nor ensures their human rights within the country. 

The Shift in approach

Almost a decade earlier, the Indian government linked the growing refugee population with the easy entrance of terrorists into India through the borders. Multiple attacks since then have been reported, and the government thus started to tighten its borders, which has affected refugees entering India, forcing deportation, especially of Rohingya refugees, and bringing stricter administration against refugees and illegal migrants. The shift in approach does not resolve India’s problem of securitisation of its borders by its neighbouring countries; rather, it exacerbates the problems India causes to the livelihoods of refugees and to India’s domestic community. This shift not only brings more uncertainty to the lives of refugees, but also affects India International reputation will be affected due to this shift in a manner that, India, before the shift in its approach, allowed refugees to take shelter from their home country due to life-threatening circumstances, but now after letting them in, India forces deportation without any domestic framework of rights of refugees nor any international cooperation with other countries. Thus, this shift in the approach by the Indian government provides a complex interplay between the security of the state and the social welfare of refugees who entered the state for security from fear of persecution. 

The state of Refugees in India

“We are victims of war, now we are victims of unclear future.”

As of 2023, the data reported that India hosts 2,12,000 refugees, amongst which India only assures to protect around 1,50,000 refugees, including only Tibetan and Sri Lankan documented refugees, and excludes Myanmar, Afghan, and African refugees completely. India has seen a 33% increase in the population of refugees in the last decade. Many of the refugees already work under India’s informal economy and contribute to slum growth in contemporary times. Given that, India’s AADHAR-based healthcare and other government services, such as education, make access to such basic social needs impossible for such refugees. UNHCR-registered refugees, approved by the state, have access to basic livelihood needs from the government, but the majority of the refugee population is excluded from such services. Mr Shashi Tharoor, Member of Parliament of India, placed a bill in the year 2015 to build asylums for the care and protection of a large number of refugees. The UNHCR uses RSD Identification for the refugees in India and, in collaboration with the NHRC of India, provides basic amenities and housing. However, India, not being a member of the International Refugee Convention, does not follow an identification system, with each state at their discretion to provide basic services and living, and this affects UNHRC implementation and makes them vulnerable. The recent case of Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India (2021) has highlighted the plight of the Rohingya refugees who are detained by the government, which causes strain on the prison and detention centres in India. 

States such as Delhi, Mumbai, West Bengal, and Assam are prone to informal employment and refugee influx. The JNU society has reported outbursts of structural housing and basic amenities, including vector-borne diseases, a lack of sanitation, and water supply in areas with the increase in Bangladeshi Muslim population, which have impacted the domestic communities living near the Delhi-NCR Region. Especially, COVID-19 saw irregularized and unhygienic conditions in refugee camps around the world, where immunization and self-isolate policies were not effective due to the statelessness of refugees. Differential treatment also breeds within the refugee community, which is a result of India’s poor stance towards refugee communities. Sri-Lankan Refugees and Buddhist Refugees are groups supported and recognised by the Indian Government historically, and have significantly more access to housing and access to basic healthcare and facilities provided by the government of around 90% according to the NHRC survey, whereas 22% of African, Afghans, and Myanmar refugees have access to rented houses and government services freely.  India also does not hold many asylums, and coupled with a lack of livelihood within the community, this will cause an increase in informal living and employment. 

Way forward

India’s shift from a historic approach of non-refoulement status to a more securitized approach by the state is not the right approach towards the refugee problem in India, since India is one of the largest holders of refugee populations in the global South. There are mainly two ways to go forward with this rising problem: 

Firstly, ratifying the UN Refugee Convention. The Refugee Convention and its established principles will help India in managing and ensuring refugee rights through the Human Rights Council and UNHCR, and adopt a non-refoulement position. However, given the historic Eurocentric nature of the convention, and lack of consideration of the diverse refugee population that India holds, it draws criticism from renowned scholars for being a burden upon on developing global south. 

Secondly, India shall draw inspiration from Global South countries like Uganda and Colombia and adopt them into its domestic framework, combined with international cooperation between states, to provide them with basic amenities and prevent statelessness, while preserving India’s security concerns and boosting its economy through inclusiveness. Uganda, which is home to millions of refugees and is always open and inclusive of refugees. Uganda is a good example of a refugee-inclusive regime. Uganda provides basic amenities of food, water, and housing, and is connected to various services, giving them the right to conduct local business and jobs. This has resulted in a state where refugees do not cause backlash to the economy; rather, when made inclusive properly, they boost the economy. Uganda has shown to raise local area income and consumption index and act as an economic hub. Uganda, though, faced infrastructural issues in accommodating the population, but this approach has had great positive effects. Similarly, Colombia provided inclusive access to better healthcare facilities through the regularisation of identities to Venezuelan refugees. The Columbia approach was an open and inclusive policy reform, to allow refugees to contribute to the economy while ensuring their identity. Both countries saw either no effect or a positive effect on their economy and society. Thus, open and inclusive policy reforms for the refugees, combined with international cooperation to help those refugees who want to return, can balance India’s security concerns with the rights of refugees.  

Conclusion: 

It is often argued, India already holds such a large population and faces a lack of employment and poor social service delivery, and incorporating refugees would slow down and hamper India’s growth. However, this piece states, refugees’ inclusion in the economy would benefit India in the long run, increasing the local economy and reducing the informal economy. Rather than restricting and moving forward with the current approach of India, it would worsen the conditions with irregularity and statelessness. Adopting a refugee-inclusive domestic framework combined with an unbiased identification system and international cooperation can ensure a better place for refugees who leave their home country in fear and helplessness.

Author’s Bio:

Ayushmaan is a second year student at Jindal Law School, pursuing L.LB. His research interests include public policy, corporate and cyber law.

Image Source: Displaced lives: rethinking survival, social reproduction, and (in)security with refugees