The issue of Rohingya refugees in Delhi has become a fierce political confrontation between the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the last few months. The settlement of Rohingya refugees in the capital is a contentious subject in politics, entwining humanitarian concerns, national security debates, and political manoeuvering. This issue has brought to the fore deeper questions about constitutional obligations, legal responsibilities and approach to refugees, as accusations fly and counterclaims escalate.
The political tug-of-war
The political storm erupted after AAP leaders accused the BJP of playing a double game with regard to the settlement of Rohingya refugees in Delhi. Senior AAP leaders, including chief minister Atishi, MP Sanjay Singh and former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, pointed to a tweet by Union minister Hardeep Singh Puri from August 2022 where Puri had celebrated India’s tradition of welcoming refugees. In the same tweet, he also said that Rohingya refugees will be resettled in Economically Weaker Section flats in Bakkarwala, a locality in Delhi.
For the AAP, this was an instance of the BJP’s hypocrisy. When the official rhetoric of the BJP, especially on national security, called for the deportation of Rohingya refugees, Puri’s tweet suggested that the party had actually allowed them to settle. The AAP’s criticism was sharp; they accused the BJP of bringing Rohingya refugees to Delhi under the garb of national security concerns, creating an “us versus them” narrative to rally voters while secretly settling the refugees in the city.
The BJP responded by accusing the AAP of playing politics with national security. Puri specifically accused the AAP of helping the settlement of Rohingya refugees by allegedly helping them obtain voter identification cards. The accusations and counter-accusations are not merely a political fight but represent a larger national debate on how India should treat refugees, particularly in a climate of rising nationalism and security fears.
The legal framework for refugees
The debate surrounding Rohingya refugees also touches on India’s legal obligations, particularly those derived from its Constitution and international commitments. While India does not have a specific refugee law, the Constitution offers certain protections to refugees, particularly under Article 21: the right to life and personal liberty.
The Supreme Court has held Article 21 to extend protections to all persons within the country, not just citizens. This has been reaffirmed in cases involving refugees such as the Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi’s case vs Union of India case of 1998, where the court ruled that refugees are entitled to certain constitutional protections, particularly the right to live free from arbitrary detention and deportation. The judgement was in tune with India’s commitment to the larger human rights cause, where it stated that refugees fleeing violence should not be detained or returned to countries where they would be persecuted.
Further, Article 22 protects against arbitrary arrest and detention, which is a major issue when dealing with refugees. The government’s tendency to frame the issue in terms of national security often brings it into conflict with these constitutional protections, as refugees may face detention or deportation without adequate legal safeguards. This constitutional provision ensures that any government action against refugees must adhere to due process, ensuring their right to a fair trial.
The Constitution, thus, provides a good basis for refugee rights even in the absence of a refugee law. The legal protection enshrined in Articles 21 and 22 are designed so that the refugees, just like any other individual in the country, are accorded dignity and liberty.
National security vs humanitarian responsibility
At the heart of the political battle over the Rohingya refugees is the tension between national security concerns and humanitarian obligations. On one side, the BJP has framed the issue as one of national security, particularly focusing on the potential risks posed by the settlement of refugees in sensitive regions like Jammu and Kashmir. The party claims that refugees may become easy targets for terrorist groups to manipulate, hence a significant security threat to the nation. The rhetoric has caught fire among the electorates who rank national security highly, in a climate of growing tension in the geopolitics of the region.
On the other hand, the BJP’s critics argue that India’s tradition of welcoming refugees cannot be abandoned for narrow political gains. They further emphasise that India has been a sanctuary for refugees from various countries throughout history (such as Tibetans, Sri Lankan Tamils, Afghan refugees, Bangladeshis and many others) and that the Constitution protects fundamental rights such as the right to life and liberty. The settlement of Rohingya refugees should, therefore, be viewed against the backdrop of India’s humanitarian responsibility, more in line with international norms about protection for the vulnerable.
The political narrative, therefore, is divided. On one hand, the BJP uses security concerns to justify its stance on deportation and limiting refugee settlement. On the other hand, opposition parties call for a more inclusive approach, one that respects India’s constitutional values and the broader principles of human rights.
Also read: A Lifetime in Limbo: Rohingya Refugees Face Arbitrary Detention and Dire Living Conditions
The role of the judiciary
As political parties clash over the issue of Rohingya refugees, the judiciary has played a critical role in safeguarding the rights of refugees, ensuring that they are not unduly punished for their status as displaced persons. The judiciary has historically been active in intervening when government actions potentially violate the constitutional rights of refugees.
A notable example is the intervention of the Supreme Court in the Mohammad Salimullah vs Union of India case in 2021, where the plea sought an order to prevent the deportation of Rohingya refugees to Myanmar. Though it did not immediately stop the deportations, the court made a point that India’s constitutional protections have to be reckoned with while deciding on the refugees. The court also emphasised India’s international obligations, particularly the principle of non-refoulement, that prohibits returning refugees to a country where they may face harm or persecution.
In so far as the national security concerns may override international human rights standards, the judiciary has continued to point out the adherence to international standards. This becomes more crucial now with the increased polarisation of political landscapes and the possible temptation of a government to ignore human rights concerns in favour of security. Under these circumstances, the judiciary must act as a bulwark against any possible abuse wherein the rights of refugees are taken away.
The need for a clear refugee policy
One of the crucial concerns raised due to the ongoing political and legal tussles over Rohingya refugees is related to India not having a proper refugee law at its disposal. Even though provisions through constitutional shields and international charters do provide relative protection, India still relies on policies without a sharp and well-instituted plan to deal with refugees.
A clear refugee policy would give a much-needed status to the refugees, their rights, procedures to asylum and how security issues are to be addressed. Such a policy would allow India to manage its refugee issue more systematically and transparently than at present; it would leave less scope for political manipulation and the refugees would be dealt with dignity and respect.
In the absence of a formal refugee law, India is placed in a vulnerable position where issues related to refugees become part of the political discourse rather than being guided by consistent legal principles. A robust refugee policy would not only protect the rights of refugees but also ensure that security concerns are addressed in a balanced manner.
A test of constitutional integrity
The Rohingya refugees have presented an important test to constitutional integrity. They pose daunting questions about commitments on human rights, national security and global duties. While the conflicts between political parties linger on in Delhi, the judiciary’s role will prove to be definitive while protecting these refugees’ rights with no indulgence in exploiting issues of security and national affairs.
This will be a reflection of India’s commitment to justice, equality and the protection of human dignity. In a world where political interests often supersede humanitarian concerns, India has an opportunity to demonstrate that it can balance both security and compassion, staying true to the values enshrined in its Constitution. It remains to be seen whether a comprehensive refugee policy is drafted to ensure protection from national security concerns while upholding its moral obligation as a protector, treating refugees fairly in consonance with international laws and constitutional dictates.
