Maha Bharat: Episode 44

Who are refugees and where do they come from?

← See all episodes

Who is an Indian? More importantly, who can be or become an Indian? This has become a very important and relevant question in recent times.

The story of refugees in India is as old as India itself. Over the years, India has received lakhs and lakhs of refugees. And we have dealt with each refugee crisis differently, in its own way. But each time this issue comes up for discussion in the mainstream, there seems to be a new angle to it and the entire country goes up in arms and there are heated debates.

On this episode, we try to peel back some of these layers and start with the basic question — Who are refugees, and where do they come from?

Show Notes

All clips and voices used in this podcast are owned by the original creators

Links to clips used in this episode —

Full Transcript of Episode 43 –

Who is an Indian? More importantly, who can be or become an Indian?

This is a question our leaders asked each other in the Constituent Assembly in 1949, while drafting our constitution. This was an important question, because only two years ago, India had been partitioned. Lakhs of people had migrated from India to the newly created Pakistan, and lakhs had come to India as refugees. So, should they be given Indian citizenship?

Some members of the assembly wanted to grant citizenship rights only to Hindu or Sikh refugees. If Muslim refugees enter India, they should justify their reason: do they have relatives here? Brijeshwar Prasad, a Congress member, argued that the Indian citizenship should be for any refugee who seeks shelter in the country — regardless of their religion. 

This would not be the first time that we would see refugees in our country — we have had a long history of refugees. To understand this history, let’s try to answer a basic question today: who are refugees, and where do they come from? 

The story of refugees in India is a long one — it is as old as the migration of the Parsi community from Iran to India in the 8th century, and as new as our government’s decision to deport refugees of the Rohingya community from our country four years ago. But if you have been keeping up with the news, the stories of the refugee crisis may seem confusing: why have we given refuge to Tibetan refugees, but not the Rohingya community? Can refugees be citizens? What laws are applicable in this situation?

These questions are perfectly normal, but would you believe that there is no single answer? Over the years, India has received lakhs and lakhs of refugees. And we have dealt with each crisis differently, in its own way. 

But before all of that, let’s start at the very beginning: who can be called a refugee?

We have an official definition, one that was agreed on in a Convention in 1951 — this was the Refugee Convention of 1951 held by the United Nations. This convention defined a refugee as someone who has been forced to flee or escape from their home country because of persecution, war or violence against them. There is a second, important part to this definition. And that is: such a person, who has fled his country, has a well-founded fear of going back to their country — matlab, the conditions back home are so dangerous for them, that they are unwilling or unable to go back. 

If we look around the world, the largest and longest refugee crisis of our lifetime is the Syrian refugee crisis. 

[We hear news reports about the conditions of the Syrian War]

Since the Syrian Civil War broke out in 2011, lakhs of people from Syria fled the country to escape war and brutal conflict. And where do these people go? The UN has reported that in 2020, 55 lakh Syrians have fled to the neighbouring countries of Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt. They cannot go back home because they fear the risk of dying in the ongoing Syrian war — as more than 5 lakh people already have died. Those who have fled are Syrian refugees, seeking shelter and help in other countries. 

The matter of leaving a country and going to another is never simple. Usually, there is a whole list of legal conditions attached to this process. To understand refugee crises better, let’s make sure we don’t confuse the terms. For instance: a foreigner, as we know, is someone who enters another country with permission — a VISA. The VISA permits them to stay for a certain period of time, and then they must leave. A migrant…waise mein aapko batadu, there is no legal definition of a “migrant”. But we commonly understand it is a person who has left their country and moved to another country for any reason, legally. 

Does that sound like a refugee? No — there is a clear difference between a migrant and a refugee: a refugee is someone who has faced conflict, and thus has to go to the new country. They may not have the legal documents to show for it. Refugees are protected by several refugee laws, migrants are not. 

But there is another category here, a phrase you might have heard frequently in recent times…

[We hear the words “immigrant” and “ghuspaithi” in news reports]

That’s illegal immigrants or illegal migrants — yaa hindi mein, ghus paithi. 

I’m using this phrase because our law uses it too … but there has been opposition to the word “illegal”. “Undocumented Migrants” is often used in its place. 

Anyway, the Citizenship Act of 1955 as well as other acts say that any foreigner who has entered India without a VISA, passport or official documents — or, foreigners who do have a VISA, but it has expired — are illegal immigrants or migrants. 

So, what’s the difference between an illegal immigrant and a refugee? Well, refugees, as we know, have been forced to leave their country. They have an identity card or certificate issued by the government they have migrated to or by the UNHCR, so that they can seek help under the national or international refugee laws that apply to them. Illegal immigrants cannot.

And that’s the legal difference. But here’s where it gets interesting: in India, no one law can tell you the difference between an illegal immigrant and a refugee. Why? Because we don’t have any specific legislation for refugees in our country. 

Now, that sounds harsh, doesn’t it? Actually, it’s not that India doesn’t accept refugees, just that the law for refugees is a bit foggy or vague in our country. We’ll get to this part — but before that, let’s go back to a time when there was no international law for refugees…in fact, we didn’t even have an official definition for refugee yet.

At this time, India accepted about 50 lakh refugees from our western borders, and 25 lakhs from our eastern border. Yes, if you haven’t guessed it yet, I’m talking about the partition. 1947.

[We hear sounds of the India-Pakistan partition]

In the absence of any convention or laws, what did we do to support refugees?

A Ministry of Relief and Rehabilitation was formed. By the end of 1947, Pandit Nehru declared that rehabilitation of refugees was a national priority. And to some extent, we succeeded too. A large number of refugees came to Delhi, some on foot, some on trains that ran from the newly-formed Pakistan to India. We cannot forget the extent of violence that migrants faced on both sides of the border in this journey. Those who escaped and came to Delhi, were now refugees. 

The city of Delhi itself, doston, is a physical reminder of this time. For instance, the vast empty ground called “Kings-way”, in Delhi, where the Viceroy house was to be built. After partition camps were set up here for refugees, and the area came to be called Kingsway Camp. Aaj ise hum Guru Teg Bahadur or GTB Nagar ke naam se jante hai. But it was not only camps that were built — the goal was to settle refugees permanently. 

So, land in West Delhi was allotted for the refugees, where colonies were built for refugee families to live in. These areas were West Patel Nagar, Moti Nagar, Rajouri gardens. In fact, did you know that the famous Khan Market of Delhi was actually built so that refugee families could set up shop there — and start a new life? That’s right — more than 70 refugee families moved into Khan Market, owning shops on the ground floor and houses above the shops. And the rent for these shops was only Rs. 50!

Lekin, jahan refugees in Delhi were offered relief and support, the picture was a little different on our eastern borders. First of all, migration of refugees from “east Pakistan” — jaisa ki Bangladesh ko kaha jata tha — slowly migrated into India even after partition…until 1951. They settled in West Bengal, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh. This added to the population of these states, leading to conflict. 

While brand new colonies were being built in Delhi, the rehabilitation of refugees in the east was not the same. For instance, in 1950, the government of West Bengal sent 500 hindu refugee families, who had migrated from “East Pakistan”, to a village called Jirat in the Hooghly District to settle there permanently (hamesha ke liye basna tha). But this was a village that had been destroyed years ago, with dirty water and crumbling buildings. Even in Kolkata, the refugees did not find a place to stay. The friction between the refugee and native communities in the eastern states led to major conflict. 

It was the partition that led to the democratic India’s first and and one of its largest refugee crises. 

At around the same time that a newly-formed India was trying to resettle lakhs of refugees into the country, a similar crisis was taking place in Europe. 

[We hear an excerpt from a documentary about World War II refugees]

We know that during World War II, lakhs of jews were kept in concentration camps. Other European people fled their countries, fearing war and violence. Some countries expelled Germans — like Yugoslavia, which expelled nearly its entire German population — 5 lakh people! So, at the end of this war, hundreds of thousands of people were left displaced. Where did they go?

Camps for refugees were set up in Germany, Australia, Italy. From here, over the years, refugees were absorbed into other countries. But here’s something for you to think about – these refugees were citizens of a country they could never go back to. But they were also not citizens of the country they escaped to. So which country’s laws should they follow? Who will pay the money needed to support them? There needed to be a common, international law for the European refugees.

To frame such a law, the United Nations organized a treaty — yaani, ek tarah ka samjhuata — between nations of the world. This was called the Refugee Convention of 1951. What did they decide? First, as I already mentioned, it defined who a refugee is. Then, it outlines the rights of a refugee in any country. Jaise ki? 

A refugee should have access to the courts, the right to property, a right to marriage. The agreement also specifies what a country should do for their refugees: give them employment, rationing, housing, public education. In 1951, these conditions were only limited to European refugees, but this was extended to all refugees across the world in 1967. 

149 countries signed this agreement — matlab, in case refugees enter these countries, they should follow this convention, and they will be held accountable by the UN if they don’t.

India was not one of these countries. 

So, India was under no obligation from the UN to take in or support any refugees. But there was a reason for this too.

We saw it as something of an interference in an internal matter. Moreover, signing such an agreement will lead to international criticism about the steps India takes with respect to the refugees seeking shelter in the country. Also, our international borders are extremely porous — matlab, we are surrounded by many countries all around, so there are more chances of foreigners crossing our borders. At the time, the lack of resources, growing poverty and economy did not allow us to make any promises about absorbing refugees. 

But…in the next 50 years, we absorbed refugees from Tibet, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Myanmar. So, if not the 1951 convention, what are our laws on refugees? Let’s take a look.

In the beginning, I mentioned that India has no specific laws for refugees. This means that our government hasn’t set up a legal framework specifically for refugees. Instead, it depends on other laws and court judgments to make decisions. For instance, even if India didn’t sign the Refugee Convention, it did sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 — another UN treaty. The Article 14 of this treaty says that every human has the right to seek asylum — matlab, aashray — from persecution in another country. In fact, the Article 21 of our own constitution states that no person can be deprived of their life or liberty…whether a citizen of India, or not. 

But the disadvantage here is that they can only come into play (lagoo kiya jata hai) if a case is taken into court. For instance, in the Khudiram Chakma versus State of Arunachal Pradesh case in 1993, the Supreme Courts recalled the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and granted citizenship rights to refugees of the Chakma tribe, who had migrated from East Pakistan to Arunachal Pradesh in the 1960s. But, of course, all refugees cannot go to court. 

In this case, there is a unique situation in our country: the responsibility to take care of refugees is shared by two bodies. These are our government and  the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, or UNHCR. In some cases, our government identifies and provides support to the refugees, and in others, the Indian office of the UNHCR does so.

This has led to friction between the both, a lot of confusion, and has even been a disadvantage to many refugee communities. Every such community of refugees has its own story — of who they are, where they came from, and how it changed India. 

One such story begins in 1959, when a violent conflict was taking place in Tibet. 

Why? 

Well, China claimed Tibet as its territory, but the small, strong country of Tibet wished to remain independent. Tibetan rebels fought back. At this time, China sent troops into Lhasa, the capital of Tibet. This was a worrying move — as Lhasa was also the home of the Dalai Lama, a spiritual leader of the Tibetan people. They feared that the troops may attack the Dalai Lama — and this was a legitimate fear.

In a few days, in the middle of march of 1959, the Dalai Lama, his family, a few of his supporters and his officials left Lhasa, secretly. Dressed as a soldier, the Dalai Lama travelled for two weeks… across the himalayan regions and even the Brahmaputra river, until he reached the India-Tibet border. Here, he realized that the Chinese troops were almost going to catch him. He wrote a letter to Pandit Nehru, who was our Prime Minister then, asking him to please grant him refuge in India. 

Pandit Nehru agreed readily! The Dalai Lama, his family…and soon, 8000 other Tibetan Refugees were offered asylum in India. 

Over the years, the Indian government offered support to this community in a number of ways. The Dalai Lama and the rest of the Tibetan community was offered the town of Dharamsala in Himachal Pradesh, where they have been living for years. In fact, the Tibetans in India and other countries around the world live in a government-in-exile — they vote for their leaders, have a judicial as well as an executive branch. 

Tibetan refugees have been given a residency permit by the government, along with citizenships and Indian passports. Some are issued a Registration Certificate by the Foreigners Registration Office in India.

A similar, positive response to the plight of refugees was seen again about 20 years later. From 1983 to 1989, more than 2 lakh Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka migrated to Tamil Nadu to escape the Sri Lankan Civil War.

When the refugees from Sri Lanka came to Tamil Nadu in waves over the years, the government allocated them into refugee camps. Some refugees stayed outside the camps, but they were issued a refugee registration certificate. Refugees were given financial support, access to education and rations of food and supplies. 

What I’m trying to point out here is that in both these instances, migrants from Tibet and Tamil Nadu escaped a situation of persecution and took shelter in India — and we recognized them as ‘refugees’. But when a refugee crisis happened in 1971 — and a similar one, again in 2015, the situation was quite different. 

I971 — the year of the “Liberation War” for Bangladesh, the year when a new country was formed. Bengali nationalists, Pakistani army..and even the Indian army fought for months. Lakhs and lakhs of people were killed. 

1 lakh people from East Pakistan migrated into India. In one day. 

That’s right – in May 1971, an average of 1 lakh people Bangladeshi refugees migrated to the states of West Bengal, Assam, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh per day. In total, 1 crore refugees came to India. About 70 lakh of them stayed in refugee camps. Toh hua yeh, ki shuruat mein India welcomed all refugees: we provided them with food, shelter, and built more camps near the border. But with the number of refugees pouring in, you can imagine that resources soon became a problem for us. We received food aid from other countries, set up medical camps, shops for essential commodities. But we were still a new country at that time, just recovering from our own hunger crisis. In many ways, the government handled the refugee crisis efficiently. So, what happened next?

Two things: one, the aftermath of the crisis created friction between the refugees and the local communities. Bangladeshi refugees were moved…and not just a few, but in groups of 30 thousand and 50 thousand into small towns. For instance, the Dhubri town in Assam. The population of these towns itself was smaller than the refugee camps. So of course, a fight over commodities and later on, even over the social identity of these areas ensued. Separatist movements in states like Assam — matlab, the demand of a different state — rose from these conflicts.

And secondly, the question of the refugees’ identity. Why is this important? Let’s remember what happened in the case of Tibetan and Sri Lankan refugees. They were given a refugee identity card, or a registration certificate. Some refugees were given citizenship rights too, as we heard before. But refugees from Bangladesh were not given a refugee status, let alone citizenship rights. 

Can we do this?

The answer is yes — like I told you, India has no specific refugee policy, so it is up to us to deal with each crisis in our own way. So, refugees from Bangladesh, those who have not been able to get Indian citizenship, legally speaking are “illegal immigrants”.

And so are the refugees from the Rohingya community:

[We hear a news report about the Rohingya refugees entering India]

The Rohingya people are a muslim minority community from Myanmar. In Myanmar, they faced brutal violence for being “outsiders”. In recent years, a lot of the Rohingya people have fled to neighbouring countries for shelter — like Bangladesh and India. But in India, the Rohingya refugees were seen as a “threat to our national security”. So, refugee status ya citizenship dur ki baat hai, the government has declared that they will deport the Rohingya people back to Myanmar.

Ab, legally we know that our government can do this, because we are not signatories of the Refugee Convention. But there’s another funda here…have you heard of the term “non-refoulement”? Non-refoulement is the practice of not forcing refugees or asylum seekers to go back to the country where they may be subjected to persecution. Of course, the convention has a clause on non-refoulement. 

So, when the Union Government declared that they will, in fact, deport Rohingya refugees back to Myanmar, they wrote to the Supreme Court saying that they are not bound to any law of non-refoulement. But there was a twist here: the UNHCR also wrote to the Supreme Court, saying that India has signed many other international treaties, which make it our duty to protect the lives of refugees. Aur toh aur, Non-Refoulement is a clause under the International Law, which is applicable to all countries.

As of 2020, the government is still planning to deport refugees. Some of these Rohingya refugees have an identity card from the UNHCR, but because of the recent necessity to have government documentation like aadhar card, the refugee status from UNHCR is not enough for them to get jobs, education…not even a SIM card!

Phew. 

Like I said in the beginning, the legal aspects of recognizing and giving rights to refugees is certainly confusing — and recently, it has been criticized heavily, too.

The story of refugees is inseparable from citizenship. In the beginning of the episode, we talked about the leaders of our constituent assembly, the conditions that determine if refugees can be Indian citizens. 

Two years ago, history repeated itself when our government made a similar decision by amending an old law. You probably know what I’m talking about: 

[We hear a news report saying that the CAA bill has been passed in the Rajya Sabha]

In short, in 2019, the government simplified the process of granting Indian citizenship to refugees who belonged to a minority religion in their country, from: Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. This included Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis, Jains, Buddhists or Christians who had migrated to India before 2014. This did not include Muslim minoritites — thus, Rohingya Refugees were completely left out from this law. This was the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019.

Many experts and citizens all around the country expressed their dissent against this move — 

[We hear protest chants]

Why? Because this act left out a whole community from an important right. The arbitrary nature (manmauji roop) of refugee laws affects their citizenship, and as a result, their safety. The National Citizens’ Register of Assam is an example of this — this is a list of citizens of Assam with legal documents to show that they are Indian. Refugees without citizenship have been left out of this register — and not just a few, 40 lakh people have been left out. Waise, this is nearly the population of New Zealand!

So, what can India do? 

Many experts believe that we need a proper refugee law, one that is uniform to all situations. In fact, the CAA has been the first law in India that addresses refugees! Currently, India treats refugees as foreigners — giving them less and more rights as the government sees fit. Without a national law for refugees, this situation is not likely to change. 

Doston, the lives of refugees are bound by the laws, politics and the economy of a country — the countries they leave behind and the ones they seek shelter in. To understand how these laws and policies have been implemented in our history can help us understand the plight of refugees and the solutions better. That was my effort today. 

I’ll be back next week with a brand new episode of Maha Bharat!

Credits