The Government of India has strongly rejected
a recent report by Thomas H. Andrews, the UN Special Rapporteur on the human
rights situation in Myanmar, which linked the 22 April 2025 terror attack in
Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir, to increased pressure on Myanmar refugees within
India. In a statement delivered at the
Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, Member of Parliament
Dilip Saikia described the observations in the report as “baseless and biased”,
and condemned the alleged linkage as a “prejudiced and blinkered analysis” of
India’s handling of displaced persons from Myanmar. The Anders report claimed that even though no
individual from Myanmar was implicated in the Pahalgam attack, refugees from
Myanmar in India were subjected to summons, detention, interrogation and
threats of deportation. India maintains
that these claims carry no factual basis and amount to a false conflation of
counter-terror measures with refugee protection concerns.
What the UN
Expert’s Report Claimed
In his report, Andrews referred to the April
2025 terrorist attack at Pahalgam, where tourists were targeted, and observed:
“following the April 2025 terrorist attack … refugees from Myanmar have been
under severe pressure in India even though no individuals from Myanmar were
involved in the attack.”
The report further stated that displaced persons in India told him they had
been summoned, detained, interrogated and threatened with deportation in recent
months. It highlighted an event in early May 2025 in which about 40 Rohingya
refugees, including women and children, were reportedly detained in Delhi,
flown to the Andaman & Nicobar Islands via Indian military aircraft and
transferred to a naval vessel. The report also claimed deportation of scores of
Rohingya to Bangladesh in May.
India’s
Core Objections and Response
India’s government argues the report overlooks
the country’s stance and efforts on refugee issues, and misrepresents the
reality of law-and-order and national security contexts. MP Saikia told the UN
that the alleged link between the Pahalgam terror attack and Myanmar refugees
“has absolutely no factual bearing.” He
further cautioned the Special Rapporteur not to rely on “unverified and skewed
media reports whose sole purpose appears to be maligning my country.” India
emphasised that it is home to more than 200 million Muslims about
10 % of the world’s Muslim population living in harmony with people of all faiths. India also pointed out its serious security
concerns relating to refugee-flows, displacement, and cross-border spill-overs,
including radicalisation and trafficking. Saikia said India was witnessing “an
alarming level of radicalisation among the displaced persons” which has
“consequential pressure” on law and order.
India’s
Advocacy for Peace and Stability in Myanmar
Despite its sharp criticism of the UN report,
India reiterated its consistent policy on Myanmar. Saikia emphasised that New
Delhi supports a “Myanmar-owned and Myanmar-led path toward peace, stability
and democracy.” He called for an immediate cessation of violence, release of
political prisoners, unhindered delivery of humanitarian assistance, inclusive
political dialogue, and credible participatory elections. He also referenced India’s humanitarian
assistance to Myanmar following the March 2025 earthquake through “Operation
Brahma”, sending over 1,000 metric tonnes of relief supplies and deploying
medical teams part of India’s broader regional engagement.
Broader
Implications and the Way Forward
This diplomatic disagreement underscores the
tension between national security imperatives and refugee-rights discourse. On
one hand, India seeks to safeguard its border regions from spill-over violence,
infiltration and other cross-border threats. On the other, international
human-rights mechanisms expect protection of displaced persons and scrutiny of
state actions.
The UN expert’s linkage of a terror attack with refugee treatment raises
questions about how refugees are impacted during heightened security
situations. India’s rejection suggests it views the linkage as unfounded and
damaging to its sovereignty and refugee policy.
Going forward, the incident may prompt renewed dialogue on how India manages
displaced populations from Myanmar, especially Rohingya refugees, and how
humanitarian, security and refugee frameworks intersect in South Asia.
Transparency, independent verification and improved refugee-protection measures
may help bridge gaps between India’s position and international expectations.
0 Comments