Answer

Introduction

Throughout history, India has sheltered displaced communities from Parsis to Tibetans, yet the absence of a clear refugee law blurs the line between compassion and suspicion. In the name of national security, genuine asylum seekers are often misclassified as infiltrators, revealing systemic ambiguity and inconsistency.

Refugee–Infiltrator Distinction and the Absence of a Refugee Law

• Legal vacuum: India, not party to any international refugee convention, lacks a domestic definition, causing refugees to be conflated with illegal migrants under the Citizenship Act.
  Eg: India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or 1967 Protocol.
• Ad-hoc approach: Refugees are governed under general foreigner laws, lacking a dedicated refugee policy.
  Eg: The Immigration and Foreigners Act (2025) applies uniformly to all foreign nationals, without specific provisions for refugees.
• Discriminatory treatment: Some refugee groups receive formal rehabilitation (Tibetan refugees), while others are excluded.
• Religion-based exclusions: The CAA, 2019 provides fast-track citizenship only to six non-Muslim communities from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
  Eg: It excludes groups like Rohingya Muslims and Sri Lankan Tamils.
• Inconsistent relief: Even where relief is given, it is piecemeal and temporary.
  Eg: Recent notification exempted overstaying Tamil refugees (before Jan 9, 2015) from penal provisions, but others remain vulnerable.

Challenges In Creating A Comprehensive Refugee Law

• National security concerns: Distinguishing genuine asylum seekers from infiltrators remains complex due to porous borders.
  Eg: Refugees from Bangladesh or Myanmar may be labelled infiltrators if undocumented.
• Diverse refugee inflows: India hosts over 2.11 lakh refugees from multiple regions like Tibet and Sri Lanka making a uniform policy difficult.
• Political sensitivities: Religion and ethnicity often politicise refugee treatment.
  Eg: CAA 2019 prioritised Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Jain, Parsi, and Buddhist refugees but excluded Muslim minorities like Rohingya.
• Fear of permanent settlement burden: States worry that recognition may lead to demographic and resource pressures.
  Eg: Sri Lankan Tamil camps in Tamil Nadu have remained for decades without integration, creating administrative reluctance.
• Lack of institutional capacity: No specialised refugee authority exists to screen, rehabilitate, and integrate refugees systematically.
  Eg: Reliance remains on general bureaucratic mechanisms under the Foreigners Registration framework.

Way forward

• Comprehensive Refugee Law: Enact a law defining ‘refugee’ separately from ‘illegal migrant/infiltrator’ to ensure national security alongside humanitarian obligations.
• Uniform treatment: Establish a non-discriminatory policy applicable to all groups without selective exclusions.
• Institutional framework: Create an independent Refugee Commission to process claims, grant refugee status, and oversee rights and rehabilitation.
• Integration with global standards: Even without acceding to the 1951 Convention, India can align with its core principles while retaining flexibility for national interests.
• Balanced approach: Combine humanitarian relief with security vetting to distinguish genuine refugees from infiltrators.
  Eg: Discreet relief, as extended recently to Tamil refugees, should be systematised under law rather than ad-hoc orders.

Conclusion

A humane yet secure refugee framework is essential for India’s moral credibility and strategic interests. Clear legal definitions, equitable treatment, and robust institutions can transform arbitrariness into fairness, ensuring asylum remains a sanctuary for the persecuted without jeopardising sovereignty or national security imperatives.

DOWNLOAD PDF