06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Protection of Refugees ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 19791]

"The law does not provide for the granting of asylum in accordance with the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 protocol, and the government has not established a system for providing protection to refugees or asylum seekers. In practice, the government provided some protection against refoulement to Tibetans and Sri Lankans. The government provided temporary protection to certain individuals who may not qualify as refugees under the 1951 convention and the 1967 protocol. According to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), at the end of November, there were 11,585 refugees under UNHCR mandate in the country.  UNHCR reported during the year that the government hosted over 300,000 refugees, including 1,803 from Burma, 9,528 from Afghanistan, and 254 others from Bhutan, Nepal, and Chakmas. Since 1960 the government has hosted approximately 110,000 de facto refugees from Tibet. During the year Tibetan leaders in India stated that the government treated them extremely well.  "

Document(s): Open document

13.12.2006 - Source: Asian Centre for Human Rights

Political Freedom - Refusal of citizenship for immigrants ("SAARC Human Rights Report 2006") [ID 18121]

"Though India by large provided more political freedom than other SAARC countries but the vulnerable groups continued to be denied political freedom. About 10 lakh refugees, mainly Sikhs, who came to Jammu and Kashmir from Pakistan during the partition of India in 1947[1] continued to be denied the right to citizenship as they have not been recognized as citizens of Jammu and Kashmir under the Jammu and Kashmir constitution. The government of India failed to ensure their political participation in the last 60 years. The conditions of those living in the bastis (colonies) were the worst. Although the refugees have been living in these bastis since 1947, they lacked developed roads, drinking water facilities, medical facilities and schools.[2] In addition, about 65,000 Chakmas and Hajongs who migrated to northeast Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh in 1964 continued to be denied political freedom. The government of India also failed to implement the Supreme Court judgement of 9 January 1996 in the case of National Human Rights Commission versus State of Arunachal Pradesh & Another (W.P. (c) No. 720 of 1995) and applications for citizenship of 4,627 Chakmas and Hajongs under Section 5 of the Citizenship Act of 1955 remained indisposed till the end of 2005. Despite repeated interventions by the Election Commission of India, the State Government of Arunachal Pradesh continued to prevent more than 15,000 Chakma and Hajong eligible voters from enrolling their names in the electoral rolls during the Intensive Revision. On 23 March 2005, the Election Commission of India passed specific guidelines as to how to enroll the names of the Chakma and Hajong voters. Instead of complying with those guidelines, the Electoral Registration Officers and Assistant Electoral Registration Officers and other electoral officers who are also employees of the State Government summarily rejected the applications of the Chakma and Hajong citizens for inclusion of their names. The representative organization of the Chakmas and Hajongs namely Committee for Citizenship Rights of the Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh (CCRCAP) complained to the Election Commission of India against gross non-compliance of ECI's guidelines of 23 March 2005 by the electoral officers in Arunachal Pradesh. Taking cognizance of CCRCAP's complaints, the ECI suspended publication of electoral rolls of all four Chakma and Hajong inhabited State Assembly constituencies. At the end of 2005, the Election Commission failed to give its final order."

Document(s): Open document

13.12.2006 - Source: Asian Centre for Human Rights

Status of the refugees ("SAARC Human Rights Report 2006") [ID 18433]

Refugees under the government of India, Refugees under the UNHCR

Document(s): Open document

16.06.2005 - Source: US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants

Annual report on conditions affecting refugees and asylum seekers in 2005 (covering 2004) ("World Refugee Survey 2005") [#39963],  [ID 6871]

Document(s): Open document

24.05.2004 - Source: US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants

Annual report on conditions affecting refugees and asylum seekers in 2003 ("World Refugee Survey 2004") [#22816],  [ID 6872]

"At the end of 2003, some 317,000 refugees were living in India, including some 100,000 Tibetans, an estimated 50,000 refugees from Myanmar, some 15,000Lhotsampa--ethnic Nepalese refugees from Bhutan, and some 11,500 mandate refugees, mostly Afghans (10,300) assisted by UNHCR, and some 400 claims pending before UNHCR. In addition, almost 100,000 Sri Lankan refugees remained in India with some 20,000 living unrecognized by the government outside of camps, some 20,000 registered with the police outside the camps and almost 60,000 government-recognized refugees in camps. Thousands of Nepalese also fled to India during the year, and up to 40,000 Afghans were living in India unassisted by UNHCR. According to the Dalai Lama’s office, some 3,500 Tibetans arrived in India in 2003. The Indian authorities permitted Tibetan refugees to enter, but the government has not granted legal temporary residence to most Tibetans who arrived in recent years.

Although India allows the Bhutanese Lhotsampa, unlike other refugees, to live and work freely in India pursuant to a friendship treaty, it does not confer permanent residence on them. Since most Bhutanese fled to India for the same reasons as those refugees in Nepal, the U.S. Committee for Refugees counts them as refugees.
Some 1,100 Sri Lankans and over 190 Afghans repatriated in 2003.

At least 650,000 persons were internally displaced in India. Among the displaced were 250,000-450,000 Kashmiris, an estimated 250,000 members of tribal groups in northeast India, an unknown number of persons, mostly Muslims, in Gujarat State in western India. The government impedes international access to internally displaced persons, and labels them migrants.

About 17,000 Kashmiris from the Indian-controlled area of Kashmir remained in Pakistan.

Some 16,200 persons from India sought asylum elsewhere during the year, including more than 3,500 in the United States, and almost 3,000 in the United Kingdom."

Document(s): Open document

25.02.2004 - Source: US Department of State

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2003 ("Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2003") [#19765],  [ID 6873]

"The law does not provide for the granting of asylum or refugee status to persons who meet the definition of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. The Government has not formulated a policy regarding refugees, asylees, or first asylum. The office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had no formal status, but the Government permitted the UNHCR to assist certain groups of refugees (notably Afghans, Iranians, Somalis, Burmese, and Sudanese). Unlike in previous years, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees did not visit the country.

The Government also provides temporary protection to certain individuals who do not qualify as asylees or refugees.

The Government provided certain assistance in refugee camps or in resettlement areas, most notable to Tibetan and Sri Lankan Tamil refugees; however, this was applied inconsistently. During the year, the UNHCR began to end the monthly subsistence allowance of Burmese refugees. As a result, Burmese refugees and asylum seekers demonstrated outside the UNHCR office in New Delhi during the year. On November 12, the authorities used water cannons, electric batons, and canes to forcibly disperse 500 demonstrators and 25 of the demonstrators were injured.

According to UNHCR and government statistics, there were approximately 110,000 Tibetans in 130 camps, approximately 64,000 Sri Lankan Tamils in 104 camps, and several thousand Sri Lankan Tamils living in the country at year's end. The refugees in the camps were permitted to work, and the state and central governments paid to educate refugee children and provided limited welfare benefits. Some 80,000 Chakma permanent residents remained in Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram. By year's end, the Supreme Court's order to extend citizenship to this group was not enforced. The UNHCR reported that 11,642 Afghans, 857 Burmese, and approximately 350 others were receiving assistance from the UNHCR in the country as of August 2001. The Government also assisted an unknown number of persons from Tibet and Sri Lanka. Although the Government formally did not recognize these persons as refugees, it did not deport them. Instead, they received renewable residence permits, or their status was ignored. Increasingly during the year, some of these groups--Afghans, Iraqis, and Iranians in particular--were not granted renewal of their residence permits by the authorities on the grounds that they were not in possession of valid national passports. Due to financial and other reasons, many refugees were unable or unwilling to obtain or renew their national passports and therefore were unable to regularize their status in the country."

Document(s): Open document

22.10.2003 - Source: BBC News

The leading Indian pop singer, Daler Mehndi, faces charges relating to the trafficking of illegal immigrants ("Indian singer faces trafficking charge") [#17015],  [ID 6874]

Document(s): Open document