Rohingya Muslims are not asylum seekers as they did not apply for asylum in India, writes Kanwal Sibal, former foreign secretary, in The Economic Times. Read on:
The Rohingyas are not refugees in India, they are illegal migrants, and that distinction must be made. They have infiltrated into India primarily through our porous border with Bangladesh, just as another 20 million or so Bangladeshis have done so over the years. Just as the Bangladeshis are not refugees in India, the Rohingya Muslims too are not.
They have settled down in various parts of India in the last decade or so: in Hyderabad, Mewat and Delhi, with more than 13,700 Bangladeshis and Rohingyas in Jammu and Samba districts where their population, according to J&K state data, has increased by over 6,000 between 2008 and 2016. Deporting them from India— should that be feasible—would be acting against illegal immigrants within the ambit of our laws and not in violation of the 1951 Refugee Convention to which we are not a party. That many Rohingyas have obtained voter and PAN cards underscores their intention to pass off as Indian citizens.
Because human rights activists cannot accuse India of violating any international convention, they cite the principle of “non-refoulement” under customary law as an argument against deportation. This principle forbids a country receiving asylum seekers from returning them to a country in which they would be likely in danger of persecution on various grounds. Now, the Rohingya Muslims are not asylum seekers as they did not apply for asylum in India.
They have simply entered India illegally and settled down. Were we to expel them to Bangladesh from where they came, we will not be endangering this Muslim population, which Myanmar identifies as Bengalis, to persecution. But if the belief is that they could be persecuted in Bangladesh, evidence of that would already be glaring us in the face as several hundred thousands of them have entered as refugees in that country.
We should therefore first establish that they would be persecuted in Bangladesh for various reasons before India is castigated for wanting to deport them as illegal migrants.
As it happens, even the non-refoulement principle makes an exception in the case of those refugees who may pose a danger to the security of the country in which they are present. In the case of the Rohingyas, solid evidence exists that terrorist groups such as the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army with links to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are operating in the Rakhine province. In 2014, Rakhine was declared a key region for jihad by Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
The Centre has now informed the Supreme Court in its affidavit of intelligence inputs of links between some Rohingya Muslims and Pakistan’s ISI and the Islamic State, making them “ a serious security threat to the country”, with militant elements among them active in Delhi, Hyderabad, Mewat and Jammu.
Our human rights activists should posture less and recognise India’s moderation by looking at the response of western democracies—who framed the refugee laws—to their refugee problem. Australia settles refugees offshore.
European Union members refuse to accept refugee quotas, with Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic all opposed and unleashing a defiant anti-Muslim, antirefugee rhetoric. Hungary closed its border with Serbia to prevent refugees from entering. Macedonia used plastic bullets and stun grenades to beat back refugees from a border fence. Through Brexit, the UK wants to control migration from Europe. The US Supreme Court has finally allowed Trump to broadly implement his ban on refugees. Our SC must not rule against deportation as that would open the floodgates to illegal migration into India under the protection of law.
(Source: )
The Rohingyas are not refugees in India, they are illegal migrants, and that distinction must be made. They have infiltrated into India primarily through our porous border with Bangladesh, just as another 20 million or so Bangladeshis have done so over the years. Just as the Bangladeshis are not refugees in India, the Rohingya Muslims too are not.
They have settled down in various parts of India in the last decade or so: in Hyderabad, Mewat and Delhi, with more than 13,700 Bangladeshis and Rohingyas in Jammu and Samba districts where their population, according to J&K state data, has increased by over 6,000 between 2008 and 2016. Deporting them from India— should that be feasible—would be acting against illegal immigrants within the ambit of our laws and not in violation of the 1951 Refugee Convention to which we are not a party. That many Rohingyas have obtained voter and PAN cards underscores their intention to pass off as Indian citizens.
Because human rights activists cannot accuse India of violating any international convention, they cite the principle of “non-refoulement” under customary law as an argument against deportation. This principle forbids a country receiving asylum seekers from returning them to a country in which they would be likely in danger of persecution on various grounds. Now, the Rohingya Muslims are not asylum seekers as they did not apply for asylum in India.
They have simply entered India illegally and settled down. Were we to expel them to Bangladesh from where they came, we will not be endangering this Muslim population, which Myanmar identifies as Bengalis, to persecution. But if the belief is that they could be persecuted in Bangladesh, evidence of that would already be glaring us in the face as several hundred thousands of them have entered as refugees in that country.
We should therefore first establish that they would be persecuted in Bangladesh for various reasons before India is castigated for wanting to deport them as illegal migrants.
As it happens, even the non-refoulement principle makes an exception in the case of those refugees who may pose a danger to the security of the country in which they are present. In the case of the Rohingyas, solid evidence exists that terrorist groups such as the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army with links to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are operating in the Rakhine province. In 2014, Rakhine was declared a key region for jihad by Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
The Centre has now informed the Supreme Court in its affidavit of intelligence inputs of links between some Rohingya Muslims and Pakistan’s ISI and the Islamic State, making them “ a serious security threat to the country”, with militant elements among them active in Delhi, Hyderabad, Mewat and Jammu.
Our human rights activists should posture less and recognise India’s moderation by looking at the response of western democracies—who framed the refugee laws—to their refugee problem. Australia settles refugees offshore.
European Union members refuse to accept refugee quotas, with Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic all opposed and unleashing a defiant anti-Muslim, antirefugee rhetoric. Hungary closed its border with Serbia to prevent refugees from entering. Macedonia used plastic bullets and stun grenades to beat back refugees from a border fence. Through Brexit, the UK wants to control migration from Europe. The US Supreme Court has finally allowed Trump to broadly implement his ban on refugees. Our SC must not rule against deportation as that would open the floodgates to illegal migration into India under the protection of law.
(Source: )
No comments:
Post a Comment