MYANMAR REFUGEES IN THE CROSSFIRE
An unusual face-off between the Centre and the Mizoram government over refugees from Myanmar has once again brought to the fore India’s inconsistent stand on dealing with international refugees. Protests have raged across Myanmar since the military coup on February 1 overthrew a democratically elected government. The retaliatory crackdown by security forces has left scores dead and forced hundreds to take shelter in the Indian states bordering Myanmar.
India and Myanmar share a 1,643 km border along Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh.
Most refugees are police personnel who refused to obey the military junta’s orders—to shoot and kill the protesters—with families in tow. They fled fearing persecution, possibly summary execution. Over 700 Myanmar nationals have reached Mizoram and Manipur. Unofficial estimates put their number at over 1,000. Mizoram, which has a 510 km border with Myanmar, is sheltering most of the refugees. They are camping in the districts of Champhai, Hnahthial, Serchhip and Siaha.
The Centre has taken a tough stand against this influx in light of New Delhi’s close ties with Tatmadaw,
Myanmar’s powerful military, which has often supported Indian security forces in their crackdowns on insurgent groups in the Northeast. Many such groups have bases in Myanmar. Min Aung Hlaing, the military leader of Myanmar, has also been a vocal critic of China’s support to a rebel group in his country, the Arakan Army. This was one of the reasons India maintained ties with the Myanmar military even when the country had a democratic government in power. India was among the eight countries that attended a military parade in Myanmar on March 27.
On February 25, the Union ministry
of home affairs (MHA) directed the chief secretaries of Mizoram, Nagaland, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh as well as the Assam Rifles, which guards the Myanmar border, to stop the refugee influx. On March 10, the MHA said the refugees who had entered be deported.
Mizoram chief minister Zoramthanga has publicly expressed displeasure over the directives. In a March 18 letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, he said India could not turn a blind eye to the ‘humanitarian crisis unfolding in our backyard’. ‘Myanmar areas bordering Mizoram are inhabited by Chin communities, who are ethnically our Mizo brethren with whom we have had close contact all these years, even before India became independent. Mizoram cannot remain indifferent to their sufferings today,’ the letter stated.
Religion also binds Mizo tribes with the Chin ethnic groups. Mizoram is predominantly Christian as are the Chin people of Buddhist-majority Myanmar. Marriages are often arranged across the border and people from both sides regularly cross over for work and to meet relatives.
Large parts of the Myanmar-India border are unmanned and unfenced. The Free Movement Regime (FMR) between the two countries allows people to travel up to 16 km into each other’s countries and stay there for 14 days. Mizoram depends on Myanmar for essential commodities such as beef, pork, high-quality rice, fruits and household utensils. Mizoram sends across items scarce in Myanmar, such as medicines and fertilisers. “The inter-generational cross-border linkages are very different from how one would study these borders on paper,” says Ruhee Neog, director of the Delhi-based Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies.
The refugees have found a groundswell of support among Mizos and their civil society groups. Mizo village councils have issued statements expressing willingness to accommodate Chin refugees. The Mizoram government has issued a standard operating procedure (SOP) to facilitate the refugees’ stay in the state. Zoramthanga, on February 24, told the state assembly that his government was ready to provide assistance to civilians fleeing the Myanmar regime. The SOP, however, was revoked following a directive from the Centre.
In 2011, the Centre had circulated an SOP to all states and Union territories for dealing with foreign refugees. Cases that can prima facie be justified on grounds of persecution based on race, religion, sex, nationality, ethnic identity and membership of a social group or political opinion can be recommended to the MHA for a long-term visa (LTV), following a security clearance. The final decision to grant LTVs, though, rests with the Centre.
Two days after Zoramthanga’s letter to the PM, a Mizoram delegation, which included two MPs from the state, met MoS for home Nityanand Rai and requested help for the Myanmar refugees. K. Vanlalvena, the sole representative of the ruling Mizo National Front in the Rajya Sabha, met vice-president Venkaiah Naidu and said that deporting the refugees would endanger their lives. But the Centre remains firm on its stand.
Meanwhile, the BJP-led government in Manipur, on March 26, instructed authorities and the civil society not to offer food and shelter to the Myanmar refugees, except medical attention for those who have suffered ‘grievous injuries’. The order had to be withdrawn following a public outcry.
Independent observers blame the Mizoram-Centre standoff on the lack of a clear policy on international refugees. India is also not a signatory to the UN’s 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Though India has in the past provided refuge to those fleeing persecution in Sri Lanka, Iran and Tibet, its policy on refugees has been inconsistent. For instance, while Tamils, Tibetans and Afghans have been welcomed, the government considers the Rohingyas from Myanmar a security threat.
While concerns over Rohingyas’ alleged involvement in terror activities cannot be ignored, the government’s line on them has faced increasing scrutiny after the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) in 2019. “What’s happening in Myanmar is a classic case of persecution. But India has been dishonest about its foreign policy. The China card is unnecessarily hyped to maintain ties with the military in Myanmar. Also, the CAA is not about protecting people who are being persecuted. It was passed with electoral calculations,” says Ravi Nair, executive director, South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, Delhi.
The central government’s insistence on sending the Myanmar refugees back also goes against India’s support for non-refoulement, the principle of not sending refugees back home if they are likely to face persecution there. As Neog says, humanitarianism shouldn’t require any intellectual justification. ■
THE REFUGEES HAVE FOUND BIG SUPPORT AMONG MIZOS, WITH VILLAGE COUNCILS READY TO ACCOMMODATE THEM