World Refugee Day
India’s Refugee Situation
India did not sign the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention. Nor is she a signatory of its 1967 Protocol, making it one of only about 50 countries to not do so. 140 countries signed it.
But India does still take in refugees and asylum seekers. According to the UNHCR, there were 204,600 refugees, asylum seekers and “others of concern” in India in 2011. 13,200 people from Afghanistan, 16,300 from Myanmar, the two older populations of around 100,000 Tibetans and 73,000 Sri Lankan Tamils.
Other refugees include Buddhist Chakmas from the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh, and small populations from Somalia, Sudan and other sub-Saharan African countries.
Since then, Muslim Rohingyas have also sought refuge in India. According to the United Nations, there are 16,000 registered Rohingyas in India, but many more are believed to be undocumented, leading to an estimated total of 40,000.
So India does have refugees. Why not just sign the convention then?
India’s delegations’ reasons are namely:
-
Borders in South Asia are porous and can lead to mass movements of people if conflict breaks out anywhere, putting a strain on resources and infrastructure.
-
Accepting large amounts of refugees can upset the demographics of a region. Assam is at the forefront of this issue in India.
-
India has sometimes reasoned that the definition of “refugee” is too narrow according to the convention. In 2003, the Indian Representative to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) stated that the convention fails to recognise “the fundamental actors which give rise to refugee movements”, adding that “most of the refugee movements are directly related to widespread abject poverty and deprivation around the globe” – which are not recognised under the convention.
References:
https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/bePZQScFIq1wEWv9Tqt4QO/Why-India-wont-sign-Refugee-Treaty.html
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/why-india-did-not-sign-the-1951-refugee-convention-41414