AFTER the Indian government deported seven Rohingya men to Myanmar, the Rohingya community in India is in the grip of fear and uncertainty about its future. The Rohingyas in India, who live in squalid conditions in refugee camps across the country, know that they will face the worst forms of persecution in Myanmar.
Sabber Ahmad of the Rohingya Human Rights Initiative (ROHRIngya) told Frontline: “We would like to request the government to not send us back. Our sisters were raped and our homes were burned there. We are here because we escaped genocide. If peaceful conditions develop back home, we will ourselves go back; no one wants to remain stateless. But going back now is fraught with risks of persecution.”
The deportation from India took place on October 4 after the Supreme Court refused to stay their forcible return to their country. Mohammad Jalal, Mokbul Khan, Jalal Uddin, Mohammad Younis, Sabbir Ahamed, Rahim Uddin and Mohammad Salam were arrested in 2012 on the grounds of illegal entry into Indian territory and kept in a detention centre in Silchar, Assam. The Assam Police handed them over to the Myanmar authorities at the border in Moreh, Manipur.
As the Rohingyas were being taken to the Myanmar border, the Supreme Court heard a petition filed by the advocate Prashant Bhushan pleading to halt their deportation, saying they had fled to India from their home state of Rakhine to escape violence and discrimination in Myanmar.
Human Rights Watch and other organisations denounced the deportation. Amnesty India said: “These seven men are at grave risk of being subjected to serious human rights violations by the Myanmar government.”
Meenakshi Ganguly, the South Asia director of Human Rights Watch, said: “Forcing any Rohingya back to Myanmar now puts them at grave risk of oppression and abuse. The Indian government has disregarded its long tradition of protecting those seeking refuge within its borders.”
A three-judge bench comprising the Chief Justice of India, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, and Justices Sanjay Krishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph rejected the plea to stop their forcible return. Prashant Bhushan requested the court to allow the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) access to the men to ascertain whether they really wanted to go back to Myanmar. When he told the bench that the Rohingyas faced the risk of persecution if sent back and it was the court's responsibility to protect their lives, Chief Justice Gogoi shot back: “You do not have to remind us of our responsibility, we are aware of it.”
Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the bench that Myanmar had given the men identity certificates, temporary travel documents valid for a month and accepted them as citizens. Human Rights Watch countered this argument by saying that these documents did not confirm that Myanmar accepted them as its nationals or citizens. “Rohingya are not granted citizenship in Myanmar, where they are eligible only for National Verification Cards [NVCs], identity documents that restrict the freedom of movement and have been commonly issued under coercion.” The government told the court that in addition to information about these seven men, it had received information about 12 other people from the Assam government in 2016, but did not disclose any information on the status of their detention.
Prashant Bhushan said that it was unfortunate that the Supreme Court had allowed the government to deport the seven refugees to Myanmar although the U.N. and international human rights organisations had been saying that Myanmar had committed genocide against the Rohingyas and that if they were sent back they would be subjected to torture and murder.
The Additional Solicitor General told the court that the seven men wanted to go back to Myanmar. A Rohingya refugee, on condition of anonymity, told Frontline that the seven men had probably agreed to go back because they did not know what happened during the six years during which they were in prison. “They were not given access to proper legal counsel or human rights organisations. They did not know how bad the situation was back home. Today, they have been sent back in a publicity stunt. But as soon as the glare of the media shifts and three-four months pass, they will be harassed by the Myanmar authorities demanding to know why they went to India.”
Of the 40,000 Rohingyas living in India, at least 18,000 are registered as refugees with the UNHCR, but the seven men who were sent back did not have refugee cards. They had been sentenced to three months in prison but spent six years in jail.
One Rohingya said: “It is a failure of the U.N. that it did not reach out to the detainees and provide them with refugee cards. There are 200 Rohingyas in detention centres across India for entering the country illegally. The government should give access to them and their refugee status should be ascertained at the earliest.” The government has maintained that all Rohingyas in India are illegal immigrants and would be deported. Minister of State for Home Affairs Kiren Rijiju said India did not recognise their refugee status. Time and again, government representatives have termed the Rohingyas as “terrorists” and demanded their deportation.
Nationality verification
On October 1, Home Minister Rajnath Singh said that the government had ordered the States to start collecting biometric data of the Rohingyas after which the government would initiate action through diplomatic channels with Myanmar to “resolve” the matter. Local police authorities have been visiting the Rohingya camps in Delhi and forcing the refugees to fill up the bilingual nationality verification form furnished by the Embassy of Myanmar. “As the forms come right after the deportation, the people at the camp are scared as they think this form means deportation is a must. Although in the beginning people refused to fill the forms expressing concern, now they have no option but to fill them,” said Ali Johar, youth leader and founder of the Rohingya Literacy Programme.
The form, which was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Delhi, states that its purpose is to capture “biographic data of illegal Rohingya Immigrants residing in Delhi”. The Rohingyas are under no illusion that the submission of the form will provide them asylum in India. The details required to be filled in the form are the applicant’s date of birth, height, eye colour, the reason for travelling abroad, and details of the applicant's siblings, partner, parents and children.
A Rohingya working with a human rights organisation told Frontline on condition of anonymity that the forms could be used to harass the family members of those who fled Myanmar. “It will be easier to track down our family members and harass them if we fill up this form. I have told the police that even if you put me in jail or beat me up, I can’t fill in this form. My parents are back in Myanmar and if they are harmed, will they take responsibility? Because of my human rights work, the government has a bone to pick with me and can torture my parents more because of that.”
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Gueterres had reportedly appealed to India to not deport Rohingyas as they might face persecution in their home country. On October 2, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Racism, Tendayi Achiume, expressed alarm at the government’s plan to forcibly deport the seven Rohingyas to Myanmar, which could constitute refoulement and would amount to a violation of international law. The Centre, in its affidavit to the Supreme Court, said that it was not bound by the principle of non-refoulement as it was not a signatory to the Refugee Convention of 1951 or the Protocol of 1967. The court accepted this argument and allowed the Rohingyas to be sent back. The Indian government’s decision to forcibly send back the seven Rohingyas violated its international legal obligations, the Human Rights Watch said.
It said: “India’s assertion that the deportations were not violating any international law is inaccurate. While India is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, it is prohibited under customary international law from forcibly returning any refugee to a place where their life or freedom would be at risk. Article 3 of the UN Convention against Torture, which India has signed but not yet ratified, prohibits actions to expel, return (refouler) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.”
Mission’s report
The deportation of the Rohingyas comes days after a U.N. Independent International Fact Finding Mission released its full report of its 15-month-long “examination of the situation in the three states of Myanmar”. The 444-page report was submitted at the U.N. Human Rights Council session in Geneva on September 18. The report cast serious doubts over the repatriation plans and said the return of the Rohingyas could not be possible in view of the prevailing situation in Myanmar. The report held the military leaders in Myanmar guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It called for investigation and prosecution of Myanmar’s Commander-in-Chief, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, and his top military leaders. It called for an overhaul of Myanmar’s armed forces, or Tatmadaw, including replacement of the current leadership, for Myanmar to develop as a modern democratic nation.
The mission was headed by the lawyer and human rights campaigner Marzuki Darusman, former Attorney General of Indonesia, and included Radhika Coomaraswamy, a lawyer and former U.N. Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and U.N. Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, and Christopher Sidoti, international human rights lawyer and former Australian Human Rights Commissioner. Over a period of 15 months, they examined the situation in three States—Rakhine, Kachin and Shan—and concluded that the crimes committed by the military were horrendous and were on a large scale. Drawing on 875 detailed interviews held in five countries, the report illustrated in graphic detail the violent modus operandi of the Tatmadaw’s operations. “During their operations, the Tatmadaw has systematically targeted civilians, including women and children, committed sexual violence, voiced and promoted exclusionary and discriminatory rhetoric against minorities, and established a climate of impunity for its soldiers,” said Darusman.
He said: “…we insist that the perpetrators of the gross human rights violations and international crimes, committed in Rakhine, Kachin and Shan States, must not go unpunished. They also show why the top generals should be investigated and prosecuted for genocide in Rakhine State. I have never been confronted by crimes as horrendous and on such a scale as these.”
Giving extensive details of its findings on the violence perpetrated against the Rohingyas in their home state of Rakhine since August 25, 2017, in what the Tatmadaw termed as “clearance operations”, the report said thousands of Rohingyas were killed, made to disappear, gang-raped, and villages were burned. It stated that dozens, and in some cases hundreds, of men, women and children were killed in Min Gyi, Chut Pyin and Maung Nu through planned and deliberately executed operations.
The mission’s findings corroborated these operations in 54 locations. The team obtained first-hand accounts of additional operations in 22 other locations. With the help of satellite images, the mission established the burning of 392 Rohingya villages. The burning was followed by bulldozing of large areas of the ground, rendering the villages unrecognisable, devoid of all structures, trees and vegetation. New security structures, infrastructure projects and villages are already being built for non-Rohingya ethnic communities.
The report investigated the rampant hate speech in Myanmar disseminated through public pronouncements, religious teachings and traditional and social media. A recent report in The NewYork Times unearthed the Myanmar military’s use of Facebook to spread propaganda for ethnic cleansing. Military personnel had been posing as fans of pop stars and national heroes for half a decade as they shared fake news and communal propaganda against the Rohingyas. The report also expressed concern over two Reuters reporters, Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo, who were convicted and put behind bars for investigating the extrajudicial killings of 10 Rohingya men in Inn Din, an incident that has been corroborated by the U.N.
The report called on the U.N. Security Council to either refer Myanmar to the International Criminal Court or establish an ad hoc international criminal tribunal. It also called for targeted individual sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes, against those who appear most responsible for the events, and an arms embargo on Myanmar.
