India's Evolving Stance on Refugees and Migration: Merging National Security and Humanitarianism

Migration and asylum have significantly influenced India's history, shaping its demographic and socio-political landscape. India’s approach, as a nation that has witnessed some of the largest migrations in history, has been shaped by a complex interaction of historical legacies, security imperatives, and humanitarian commitments.

Illustration by The Geostrata

India has traditionally adopted a pragmatic approach, providing refuge to persecuted groups like Tibetans and Sri Lankan Tamils, while managing mass migration from Bangladesh and Myanmar.

However, without a formal refugee policy, the response is influenced by geopolitical interests, security concerns, and domestic politics.

While India has consistently fulfilled its humanitarian role, offering a roof of protection to various displaced communities where its refugee policies are frequently guided by national interest, concerns over illegal migration, demographic shifts, and border security have led to a case-by-case policy approach, evident in the Assam NRC exercise and the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019.

These measures state how India’s domestic and regional strategies are increasingly influenced by national security considerations.

Despite these challenges, India displays a commitment to welfare and stability as a regional power, seeking to strike the delicate balance between security and humanitarian responsibilities.

This article examines India’s evolving stance on migration and refugees, trying to highlight the tensions inherent when addressing humanitarian obligations while safeguarding national interests amidst shifting global migration trends in the present times.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON REFUGEE AND MIGRATION POLICIES

India’s experience with migration and refugees spans centuries, shaped by historical events and geopolitical realities. The Partition of British India occurred in 1947 and initiated one of the most violent and largest mass migrations in history, relocating about 15 million individuals between India and Pakistan.

This crisis is defined by forced expulsions and communal violence, driving the newly independent Indian state to deal with mass resettlements. This established the precedent for its adaptable but frequently reactive refugee policies in the later years.

During the Cold War, India became a refuge for various communities which were displaced.

In 1959, following China’s annexation of Tibet, India granted asylum to the Dalai Lama and thousands of Tibetan refugees, providing settlement and education while straining ties with China.

Further, in 1971, the Operation Searchlight by the Pakistan Army in East Pakistan forced nearly 10 million people into India, particularly in states such as West Bengal, Assam, and Tripura, prompting India to support Bangladesh’s independence both on strategic and also humanitarian grounds.

The 1980s and 1990s saw a massive influx of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees into Tamil Nadu due to the Sri Lankan civil war.

While India initially extended diplomatic support, its stance shifted following the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi by the LTTE in 1991, leading to a more cautious approach. 

After the Indian economy was opened in the aftermath of LPG reforms, India experienced changing migration patterns, with rising labour migration, asylum seekers, and illegal border crossings.

The Rohingya crisis, which began in 2012, saw thousands fleeing religious persecution in Myanmar and seeking refuge in India, however, the government adopted a restrictive stance, putting forward its security concerns.

Also, political instability in Afghanistan has led to a steady influx of Afghan refugees, with India’s response varying based on diplomatic interests.

Over the decades, India’s refugee policy has leaned more toward immediate geopolitical circumstances than abiding by a fixed legal framework, reflecting a dual approach. It offers refuge during crises while maintaining strategic flexibility to safeguard national interests.

LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK GOVERNING REFUGEES IN INDIA

India lacks a dedicated refugee law; it instead relies on a blend of constitutional provisions, administrative policies, and international norms.

Unlike many nations, India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, and retains sovereignty over refugee policy without binding legal obligations. As a result, India follows an ad-hoc approach, treating different refugee groups based on geopolitical, security, and diplomatic considerations.

The Foreigners Act, 1946, which governs the entry, stay, and deportation of foreigners, does not differentiate between refugees and other migrants, often leading to restrictive policies.

The Citizenship Act, 1955, and its 2019 Amendment (CAA) have further shaped India's migration landscape by offering fast-tracked citizenship to persecuted religious minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan, while excluding ethnicities from within the Islamic world, like the Rohingyas, raising concerns over discrimination.

Besides the present regulations, the Indian Constitution provides certain safeguards. Article 14 ensures equality before the law, Article 21 protects the right to life and liberty; both are being extended to refugees by the courts in India.

Article 51(c) encourages respect for international law, influencing India’s humanitarian commitments; however, the government is not bound by its provisions. 

Judicial interventions have played a crucial role in shaping refugee protections, as seen in NHRC v. Arunachal Pradesh (1996), where the Supreme Court ruled against the forced eviction of Chakma refugees, reinforcing their right to life.

Similarly, in Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi v. Union of India (1999), the principle of non-refoulement was upheld, preventing deportation to countries where refugees face persecution. 

India's categorisation of refugees is based on historical ties and security considerations. Tibetans and Sri Lankan Tamils have received structured support, while Afghans, Rohingyas, and Myanmarese are largely dependent on the UNHCR for asylum status.

However, undocumented migrants, particularly Rohingyas and Bangladeshis, often face deportation, detention, or restrictions on movement and employment.

Though India engages with SAARC, BIMSTEC, and ASEAN on migration issues, it lacks a regional refugee framework. Migration is becoming increasingly complex and India needs a comprehensive refugee law, balancing humanitarian duties with national security.

While the right to life and right to equality apply to all within the country, they do not guarantee that the right to refuge will remain unconditional.

Clarity in the legal framework would help distinguish genuine refugees from other migrants and allow for lawful deportations to safe third countries, ensuring protection and order of equal importance.

INDIA'S SECURITY CONCERNS IN REFUGEE AND MIGRATION MANAGEMENT

While India has historically welcomed refugees, time saw its gradual transformation. Given its porous borders with Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Pakistan, coupled with cross-border insurgency and regional instability, the challenge lies in distinguishing asylum seekers from potential security threats.

Reiterating the central argument, the absence of a national refugee law means that all non-citizens fall under the Foreigners Act, 1946, making their presence in India legally ambiguous.

This has indeed led to cases where refugees and undocumented migrants are treated as security risks rather than as individuals in need of protection.

One of India's primary security concerns is cross-border infiltration and its impact on internal stability.

The Rohingya crisis exemplifies this dilemma. While India has provided shelter to various refugee communities, the government has labeled Rohingya Muslims as a security threat, citing potential links to radical religious ideology and illegal activities. 

Intelligence reports have alleged ties between certain Rohingya individuals and extremist groups, leading to stricter surveillance and deportations.

Similarly, large-scale illegal migration from Bangladesh to Assam and West Bengal has been a contentious issue, evident in demographic changes and cultural integration that have fueled political and social tensions.

The National Register of Citizens (NRC) exercise in Assam was a direct response to these concerns, aimed at identifying and deporting undocumented migrants, even though it sparked fears of mass statelessness and human rights violations.

As of now, the final NRC list published in August 2019 excluded over 1.9 million people. The process remains mired in legal challenges, delays in issuing rejection slips, and uncertainty over the future of those excluded. 

Migration also has visible implications for terrorism and insurgency. The Northeast, already affected by separatist movements, has witnessed instances where illegal migration is perceived as altering ethnic composition, exacerbating conflicts.

The India-Myanmar border, used for both legitimate asylum-seeking and illicit activities, has become a zone of interest in India’s security strategy.

The influx of Myanmarese refugees following the 2021 military coup raised alarms about the potential spillover of political instability into India’s northeastern states. Similarly, Afghan refugees post-Taliban takeover have been scrutinised for potential national security risks, particularly regarding visa policies and background verification.

Border management and counterterrorism efforts are therefore key considerations in India's immigration policy.

Strengthening border fencing, biometric tracking, and intelligence-sharing with neighbouring countries has been prioritised to curb unauthorised entry.

The government's 2019 decision to revoke Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir also had implications for immigration, as authorities heightened vigilance against infiltration from Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) was framed as a humanitarian initiative but was also viewed as a mechanism to differentiate “persecuted refugees” from “illegal migrants” based on religious identity, raising questions about the intersection of security, identity politics, and migration governance.

THE CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT (CAA) AND ITS IMPACT

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019, introduces religion as a criterion for expedited citizenship.

The law provides a fast-track naturalisation process for Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan who entered India before December 31, 2014, citing their persecution in these Islamic-majority nations.

However, the exclusion of Muslims, particularly Rohingya from Myanmar, Shias and Ahmadiyyas from Pakistan, and Hazaras from Afghanistan, sparked national and international debates over its secularity and implications for India’s migration governance.

The CAA was framed as a humanitarian measure to support persecuted religious minorities, particularly in India's neighbourhood.

However, its selective approach raised concerns about discrimination and violation of the secular ethos enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

The law was also closely linked to the National Register of Citizens (NRC), particularly in Assam, where it was seen as a means to grant citizenship to undocumented non-Muslim migrants while potentially rendering many Muslims stateless.

This fueled widespread protests across India, with critics arguing that the law undermines the principle of equal treatment of refugees and violates international refugee protection norms, including non-refoulement, which prohibits the forced return of refugees to countries where they may face persecution.

The Supreme Court, with its initial concerns over the government's infrastructural set-up for the implementation of the CAA rules, had asked the government to take its own time in creating a uniform mechanism which was user-friendly at its core, keeping the rules in limbo, only to be satisfied by the government's response through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

Currently, the monthly figures for the granting of citizenship with 350 people in May 2024, 188 in August 2024, and 185 in July 2025.

This is only a shot in the arm for the government and its due diligence mechanism, with a universal feedback to disseminate more awareness about the rules, the act and its functionality.

From a geopolitical standpoint, the CAA had diplomatic repercussions in South Asia. Bangladesh, one of India's closest neighbours, expressed concerns over being implicated as a country that persecutes minorities, straining bilateral relations.

Pakistan and Afghanistan also criticised the move, arguing that it unfairly targeted their countries. Within India, the CAA has been perceived differently across states.

While the central government defended it as a necessary legal reform, several opposition-led states refused to implement it, citing constitutional challenges and humanitarian concerns.

However, states have limited authority in this matter, as citizenship is a Central subject under the Constitution, making the Union government the sole competent authority for its formulation and implementation. 

In terms of security implications, the law has deepened anxieties about migration-related unrest.

In Assam and the Northeast, where fears of demographic changes have historically fueled ethnic tensions, the CAA reignited local anti-immigrant sentiments.

Indigenous communities feared that granting citizenship to additional migrants—regardless of religion—could threaten their linguistic and cultural identity.

Moreover, the law has been leveraged in electoral politics, with political parties either defending it as a protection mechanism or opposing it as an attempt to polarise communities.

The long-term impact of the CAA remains uncertain, as its implementation has been delayed due to legal and procedural hurdles. However, it has already reshaped India's migration discourse, making religion a central factor in refugee policy.

While the law offers relief to specific persecuted groups, it also exposes the absence of a comprehensive, non-discriminatory refugee framework in India. Moving forward, balancing security concerns, international obligations, and domestic social harmony will be crucial in determining how the CAA influences India’s broader refugee and migration policies.

INDIA'S ROLE IN REGIONAL AND GLOBAL REFUGEE GOVERNANCE

Despite not being a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, India has played a crucial role in refugee governance through bilateral diplomacy, regional cooperation, and humanitarian assistance.

Given its geopolitical position in South Asia, a region frequently affected by conflicts, ethnic strife, and forced migration, India has had to balance humanitarian responsibilities with national security and diplomatic considerations.

At the regional level, India has engaged with SAARC, BIMSTEC, and ASEAN to address migration-related challenges.

However, South Asia lacks a formal regional refugee framework, leading to fragmented responses to crises.

India has provided significant humanitarian aid during major refugee crises and extended diplomatic and material support, integrating them into its social and economic fabric. However, its stance has become more security-driven in recent years, for the reasons as stated before.

On the global stage, India collaborates with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) but maintains autonomy over refugee status determination.

It has supported international refugee efforts through humanitarian aid, disaster relief, and diplomatic mediation but has refrained from committing to binding international agreements.

India advocates for a "case-by-case approach" to asylum, prioritising strategic interests over a uniform policy.

While India’s historical refugee responses demonstrate generosity and pragmatism, its evolving policies reflect a shift towards national security and selective humanitarianism.

Moving forward, India’s engagement in global refugee governance will be shaped by its regional leadership ambitions, domestic political dynamics, and the broader geopolitics of migration management.

THE ROAD AHEAD: POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

The first and most pressing requirement is a comprehensive national refugee policy. A legal framework that incorporates international best practices while preserving India's strategic autonomy could bring transparency, ensuring that genuine refugees receive protection while addressing security concerns.

This policy should define clear asylum procedures, non-refoulement protections, and refugee rights, creating a transparent and humane approach to migration.

Border security is essential, but refugees should not be criminalised. While India faces security risks from infiltration, terrorism, and illegal migration, a human rights-based approach should be adopted.

Strengthening border surveillance and intelligence-sharing with neighbouring countries can enhance security while ensuring that asylum seekers are not treated as illegal migrants by default. Special provisions can be made for screening and vetting procedures, separating refugees from potential security threats.

Regional cooperation remains essential for sustainable refugee management. Beyond humanitarian coordination with Bangladesh, Myanmar, and UNHCR on resettlement, repatriation, and aid, India can strengthen its role by initiating strategic security dialogues with conflict-ridden states.

For instance, in Myanmar, India has engaged both the ruling junta and opposing groups to safeguard its interests, offering diplomatic recognition or conditional support in exchange for cooperation.

Such calibrated diplomacy, alongside active participation in multilateral platforms like SAARC and BIMSTEC, could pave the way for a regional refugee framework that balances stability, state interests, and humane responses to displacement.

Finally, enhancing livelihood opportunities for refugees is crucial for social stability. Allowing work permits, access to education, and basic healthcare can help refugees integrate productively into society, reducing dependency on state resources and potential security risks.

CONCLUSION

As global displacement grows more complex, India stands at a crossroads. Its decisions today will shape both its domestic fabric and its international identity for years to come.

What is at stake is not only how India responds to refugee inflows, but also the moral and strategic narrative it crafts for itself in a rapidly polarising world.

In embracing the responsibilities that come with its regional leadership, India must move beyond reactive, identity-contingent approaches and imagine a migration framework rooted in foresight, rights-based governance, and geopolitical maturity.

Rather than viewing migration solely through the lens of threat or burden, India can reframe it as an opportunity to strengthen institutional resilience, foster regional trust, and uphold constitutional values in the face of global volatility.

A robust refugee policy is not merely a legal necessity; it is a litmus test of India's democratic conscience, its diplomatic agility, and its commitment to inclusive development. The challenge is not whether India can afford to protect refugees, but whether it can afford not to.

---

BY KUSHUMIKA SIKDAR

COVERING MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

TEAM GEOSTRATA

info@thegeostrata.com