ROHINGYAS— A GLOBAL REFUGEE

LEGAL ANGLE OF THE PROBLEM

WITH REFERENCE TO INDIA

ROHINGYAS are Muslims, mainly resident of Rakhine province on Myanmar. They are driven out by Buddhists en masse from Rakhine. They illegally migrated to Bangladesh, and came to India, again illegally, through our porous eastern border.

We will discuss the problem of Rohingyas some other time. Now we discuss problem created in India by their illegal entry.

Any Rohingya entered illegally in India, can be  charged under Section 3 of the Passports (Entry into India) Act,  Section 12 (e) for entering and travelling in India without a passport , and valid VISA, and under section 14-A of the Foreigners Act,  for illegal entry into the country.

This is, of course, a bailable offence.

If bail is not arranged, the accused is detained in CUSTODY for 2 years to 7 years.  This can further be enhanced under Public Safety Act (PSA),  for a period of TWO more years maximum.

All above laws are updated, from to time.

A detention becomes arbitrary when no legal basis can be invoked to justify the “deprivation of liberty” of a person, according to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

Arbitrary detention is both a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It is also a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees all persons, not just citizens, the right to life and liberty.

You see, there are contradictions. In my opinion, DETENTION DUE TO ILLEGAL ENTRY is not Arbitrary detention.

In addition, by arresting and detaining a minor, and putting him/her in Jail, where adults are interned, a country also violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Rohingyas are entering with their children.

In September 2015, the MHA announced that from this year,  minorities from Pakistan and Bangladesh will be exempted from prosecution under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Passports Act, 1920.

This order – by not extending this protection to minorities from other countries – not only violates Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Constitution, but is also a violation “of every single tenet available both in national and international law.”

INDIA HAS TO HARMONISE THE VARIOUS CONTRADICTORY PROVISIONS OF LAWS, IN THIS REGARD.

In 1982, Myanmar passed a new citizenship law that did not recognize Rohingyas as “one of the national races” and required them, as well as anyone else who sought citizenship, to submit “conclusive evidence” of their ancestral links to the country. This put the onus of proof on the applicant and left the decision entirely in the hands of government authorities.

If the government is  to use its authority under Section 8 of the Foreigners Act to determine the nationality of Rohingyas in India, the government found them to be stateless.

Military Junta, and Local Buddhists forced the Rohingyas out of RAKHINE, where they were settled, and Rakhine is a province under Myanmar.

“Few Rohingyas [were] in possession of the necessary documents that … could establish the necessary bloodlines as required by law,” says Laura Haigh, a Myanmar expert with Amnesty International.

The Rohingyas thus came to be recognized as de jure stateless, meaning that neither Myanmar nor any other country in the world recognises them as citizens, under its domestic laws.

A source, on condition of anonymity, said that the UN High Commission for Refugees office in Delhi also sent a letter to the MHA, on a particular case,  asking it to stop deportation of ROHINGYAS, on the grounds that they are asylum seekers. There is an international law:-- principle of non-refoulement:-- which prohibits countries from sending back a refugee or an asylum seeker to a territory where there is a possibility of threat to their life or freedom.

An asylum seeker is a person who, having fled persecution in his or her country, applies for refugee status in another through the UNHCR. Once they pass the UNHCR’s rigorous status determination interview, they are recognized as refugees and given a refugee card.

This function of refugee status determination is currently carried out by the UNHCR, which has been allowed to operate in India for nearly three decades – despite the fact,  that INDIA  is not a party to the Refugee Convention. This should not be the case. India should have a LAW. And UNHCR shall be advised to close its office in INDIA. PRONTO. IMMEDIATELY.

UNHCR should look at third country, say some MUSLIM COUNTRIES, (as they are Muslims) resettlement for them given the fact that it has recognized them as refugees, and yet they continue to be detained in India and are, of course, not acknowledged by Myanmar as its citizens.

“It is incumbent on the UNHCR to exercise its protection mandate,”

Additionally, the UNHCR’s data shows that “less than one percent” of the world’s 14.4 million refugees only got resettled. At this time, they are from countries where conflict is at its peak, such as Syria and Iraq. GAZA is new addition.

India still does not have a domestic law on refugees nor is it a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol.

A big problem here. We can’t detain a Rohingya for long, as an illegal entrant. We can’t deport them, as they have no country. If INDIA give them Refugee status—more and more Rohingyas will illegally enter— and get REFUGEE STATUS, after some years will be eligible for citizenship and it will be a BURDEN on INDIA. (a)

CORELATE THIS WITH MUSLIM OBJECTIONS ON CAA. WHY THEY WANT MUSLIMS TO BE INCLUDED. 

A QUESTIONABLE VERDICT.

2014 Delhi High Court verdict on Sheikh Abdul Aziz versus State NCT of Delhi:-

Aziz was arrested under the Foreigners Act in Jammu and Kashmir and transferred to Tihar Jail after completing his sentence. He was detained there for seven years as the government had not been able to determine his nationality; Saudi Arabia had rejected his claim of being its citizen. As with the Rohingyas, since J&K Home didn’t receive a response from the MHA, it continued to issue detention orders against him until he moved the Delhi High Court.

The court directed the government to use its authority under Section 8 of the Foreigners Act to determine his nationality. The government found him to be stateless.

The court then ruled that Aziz was to be issued an identity certificate on the basis of which he could apply for a Long Term Visa so as to legally reside in India. It also ordered the J&K government and the central government to give him Rs 2 lakhs as compensation for causing his illegal detention. (a)

I HUMBLY WANT TO KNOW— WHY CITIZEN OF INDIA SHALL BE BURDAINED WITH AN ILLEGAL ENTRENT? AND THIS WILL OPEN FLOOD GATE. (a)

MYANMAR HAS CONVERTED THEIR LOCAL PROBLEM INTO A GLOBAL PROBLEM. NOW ROHINGYAS HAVE BECOME A GLOBAL REFUGEE. INDIA SHALL ACT TOUGH.

SOURCE:-

1.0 Constitution of INDIA—relevant clauses mentioned.

2.0 Bharatiya Naya Sanhita. (IPC).

3.0 United Nation's regulations, as quoted.

4.0 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/ChanakyaCode/rohingya-issue-problem-of-illegal-foreigners-in-india/.

5.0 ALL INFORMATIONS ARE IN  PUBLIC DOMAIN.

6.0 Image—GOOGLE.