10
India’s ethos rests on
the scriptural maxim “
Atithi Devo Bhava
 

, (the guest is God).

”

This tradition is so
strong that guests,
even if sworn
enemies, are given
protection and cannot
be harmed during
their stay.
“

Tithi
”in Sanskrit means a
calendar
date.
A
“
-
tithi” means what
does not have any
date. In ancient times
if anyone
wanted to visit or
meet his near and dear
ones, there was no
way he could
communicate his
arrival. So like the
present Rohingya
immigrants, in olden
days the guest went
without providing any
information and
therefore in course of
time guest came to be
called
“

athithi
one who does not
”

have any fixed time of

arrival.
 

India is home to
20 million
illegal
Bangladeshis, in
addition to
 
the 3.2 million
displaced
persons who
settled here after
the 1971 war.
Such is the Indian
tradition that even
invaders were treated
with the same
warmth, though they
responded by
becoming rulers of the
country. Perhaps it is
no coincidence that
India until recently
was a tolerant society
rather than reactive.
Iranians, Greeks,
Romans, Dutch,
Syrians, Turkis or
Turks (before Islam),
early Christians, Jews,
Zoroastrians all came,
made a difference,
and were absorbed.
India is infinitely
“

absorbent like the

ocean,” said Edward
Dodwell, the Irish
archaeologist and
writer. The Hindu,
Buddhist, Sikh and
Jain religions are
based on tolerance
and mutual
agreement. It is
amazing to think
about the astonishing
inclusive capacity of
India, which absorbs
foreign races and
cultures without
major conflict. The
Muslims when they
came were powerfully
affected by their
environment. “The
foreigners (Muslim
Turks) like their
forerunners the Sakas
and the Yueh-chi,
universally yielded to
the wonderful
assimilative power of
Hinduism, and rapidly
became Hinduised.”
 

(Jawaharlal Nehru,
The Discovery of
India
). As of 2016, India is
home to 20 million
illegal Bangladeshi
immigrants, almost
equal to the
population of
Australia. This is in
addition to the 3.2
million displaced
persons from
Bangladesh who
legally settled after
the 1971 Indo-Pak
war. They
were part of the 10
million who fled their
land to escape the
Pakistani army’s
brutal crackdown.
Only 6.8 million
returned when
normalcy returned to
Bangladesh. Although
India is not a
signatory to the
conventions on
refugees it is a
signatory to a number
of United Nations and
World Conventions
on Human Rights,
refugee issues and
related matters. India
has also voted to
adopt the Universal
Declaration of Human
Rights, which affirms
rights for all persons,
citizens and non-
citizens alike. Its
record in protecting
refugees is exemplary.
During the 1971
crisis, the government
set up relief camps for
seven million while
over three million
were
supported by host
families. But the
country doesn’t have
a formal de
finition of refugees
who are largely dealt
with by the
Registration of
Foreigners Act 1939,
 
11
Foreigners Act 1946
and Passport Act
1967. The
Constitution provides
the right to equality
before law and right
to personal liberty to
everyone living in
India. Aga
inst this background,
the government’s
prime facie opposition
to the Rohingya is
based on the fact that
the “more than 40,000
Rohingya have
illegally entered
using porous border
between India and
Myanmar and there is
serious national
security threat/concer
n”. The government
affidavit is based on
the fact that Article
19 is exclusive to
citizens of India and
no illegal immigrant
can pray for a writ of
the apex court which
directly or indirectly
confers fundamental
rights in general. The
more specific
argument, however, is
the presence of some
10,000
 

undocumented
Rohingya in the
Jammu. Their
presence in an area
close to Pakistan has
raised fears of their
future involvement in
anti-national
activities. It is said
that
security agencies had
“

information about
unauthorised
Rohingya immigrants’
contact with Pakistani
terror groups”. Media
reports also suggest
that the
Bangladesh
government has given
New Delhi
information about the
Lashkar-e-
Taiba’s setting up of
an outfit, Difa
-e-Musalman Arakan,
in the strife torn
province to
indoctrinate the
Rohingya into jihad.
The Bodh Gaya serial
blasts of 2013 were
the work of the
banned Indian group
SIMI, but it was
claimed that they
were “to avenge the
atrocities on
Rohingya Muslims by
Buddhists in
Myanmar”.
The ARSA is in arms
 

against the
government in
Myanmar, though it is
currently observing a
ceasefire. Funding for
ARSA and other
Rohingya groups
comes from Saudi
Arabia, while
weapons are
apparently sourced
from Thailand. India
fears that once the
Rohingya settle in
India, a section of
them may work for
the insurgents who are
pawns in the hands of
foreign intelligence
agencies. There is a
further fear, that being
the cradle of
Buddhism, India
would be a target of
radicalised Rohingya
in future. Also, there
are worries about
local resentments over
the resources being
absorbed by the
illegal Rohingya. The
petitioners and
supporters of
Rohingya refugees
have portrayed them
as victims of
unfortunate
circumstances who
deserve more
generous
consideration. The
gover
nment stresses the
Rohingya “criminal
behaviour in their host
society” and “possible
future radicalisation”
as reasons to refuse
entry. Given the legal
infrastructure the
issue favours the
government
argument, but the
moral factor may still
keep India from
adopting an inhuman
but legally correct
position. The world,
especially India,
knows only too well
the catastrophe of
terrorism. That is the
reason political
leaders and courts
across the globe want
secure borders and the
expulsion of illegal
occupants
 — 
irrespective of the
humanitarian fallout.
The
Supreme Court of the
United States upheld
President Donald
Trump’s travel ban
on citizens of six
Muslim countries.
European
governments are
closing their doors to
immigrants although a
sizeable number still
sneak in. Pakistan is
in the midst of
deportating five
million Afghans; and
Germany, which
accepted nearly a
million
 
12
refugees from the
Middle East is now
funding Turkey to
arrest the inflow of
refugees. The
Rohingya issue is a
conundrum hard to
solve. Perhaps that
was why Nobel peace
laureate and Myanmar
State Counsellor
Aung San Suu Kyi
preferred a resolute
silence until
September 19, 2017.
On that day Suu Kyi
informed the world
that Myanmar was not
afraid of international
scrutiny and “those
who have had to
flee their homes are
many
 – 

not just Muslims and

Rakhines, but also
small minority groups
such as the Daing-net,
Mro [Kamee], Thet,
Mramagyi and
Hindus, of
whose presence most
of the world is totally
unaware”. She
clarified that “there
has
been a call for the
repatriation of
refugees who have
fled Myanmar to
Bangladesh.
We are prepared to
start the verification
process at any time.”
The government’s
Rohingya Ethnic
Cleansing Inquiry
Commission has
denied the charges of
ethnic cleansing.
There is no doubt that
conditions for
Muslims in Rakhine
and those who fled to
India or Bangladesh
are a mix of
unimaginable tragedy
and hopelessness.
Insurgent groups like
the Arakan Liberation
Army, Arakan
Rohingya National
Organisation,
Rohingya National
Council, Arakan
Rohingya Islamic
Front and Arakan
Rohingya Salvation
Army are worsening
the refugee crisis. The
deportation debate is
thus part of the global
cliché, which is
security centric. The
other factor is the
government’s alleged
dislike of Muslim
migrants.
 

India’s poli
cy dilemma and the
terrible conditions of
the Rohingya in India
are running a parallel
course. The policy
options before India
and the world are few.
Even if it agrees to
host a few thousand
refugees, it does not
resolve the Rohingya
crisis. So while India
should offer
temporary
humanitarian relief to
the Rohingya, the
leadership must
initiate a tripartite
India-Myanmar-
Bangladesh
conversation to find a
durable solution.
Rohingya
statelessness is at the
core of the issue.
Unless that is
resolved, the crisis
will not end no matter
what policy India
adopts.
This story is from the
November 2017 issue
 

Saroj Kumar Rath

 

is a security expert. He
teaches at the University of
Delhi.