Union Home Minister Amit Shah has rightly stressed the need to make a distinction between refugees and infiltrators. Though valid, the problem lies in the application of objective parameters by those in power to make a distinction. Even where proper policy and a legal framework exist, issues may arise. Also at play is the level of official understanding. In India, which is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol, there is no comprehensive single law defining who a refugee is, leaving scope for arbitrary action. Till the end of March 2025, apart from the Citizenship Act 1955 and the Passports Act 1967, three laws (the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939 and the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920) were applied to deal with foreign nationals, including refuge seekers. From April, the Immigration and Foreigners Act replaced the three pre-Independence laws and subsumed the Immigration (Carriers’ Liability) Act, 2000. While this streamlined the legal framework, the absence of a refugee policy document has also led to different yardsticks for the refugee community in India. While there was a rehabilitation policy in 2014 for about 63,000 Tibetan refugees, there is no such document for the nearly 90,000 Sri Lankan Tamils. At the end of June 2023, the population of refugees or persons of concern in India was over 2.11 lakh (also counting those from Myanmar, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Africa and West Asia). Any undocumented or overstaying refugee is regarded as an illegal migrant (Citizenship Act). He can also be called an infiltrator. Thus, genuine and harmless refugees risk facing harassment.
Even though the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 was aimed at providing citizenship to six religious minorities belonging to Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan, it drew sharp criticism as it discriminated on the lines of religion and left out sections of Muslims, and also Sri Lankan Tamils and the Rohingya, both minorities in their countries. But in a notification last month, undocumented or overstaying Tamil refugees, who have registered themselves with the authorities, were granted exemption from penal provisions of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, provided they took shelter in India on or before January 9, 2015. Other groups too have been covered. Still, there is no change when it comes to the recent trend of religion-based exclusions. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the approach of discreet humanitarian relief to refugees in general but this has to be backed by consistent, rational and fair treatment for all.