Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
Leaders of Hindu Right-Wing organisations like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) have launched a campaign against Rohingya refugees living in India. The push appears to be a reaction to the reported killing of Hindus in Bangladesh, an incident that rightly deserves condemnation from anyone who believes in justice. However, targeting Rohingya refugees in India for events taking place in another country is unfair, misplaced and clearly political. Violence against Hindus or any religious minorities anywhere in South Asia must be condemned.
The Rohingya community in India did not migrate from Bangladesh but fled Myanmar after years of systematic persecution and violence by the state and extremist groups. A Muslim ethnic identity group who lived in Myanmar for many generations but were denied citizenship, they are considered the world's largest stateless population. Most of them arrived with almost nothing and depended on humanitarian assistance from organisations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for basic survival. In India, their Muslim identity has often made them targets of suspicion from Right-Wing groups. Yet their settlements are already under close surveillance by state agencies, including intelligence wings, and if genuine security concerns exist, the State has sufficient legal powers to act.
A recent meeting in Balapur, Hyderabad, organised by the Bhagyanagar Ganesh Utsav Samithi along with the VHP and other right-wing organisations, was held close to refugee camps, making the political intent difficult to ignore. The organisers promoted the slogan “Chalo Balapur” to generate local outrage. As per the UNHCR, there are around 7,000 refugees under the Balapur Police Station limits, and a total of 9,000 refugees in Hyderabad.
Logically, if the protest was about developments in Bangladesh, the slogan should have been “Chalo Delhi”, since diplomatic action lies with the Union government. If atrocities are taking place in Bangladesh, the government can condemn them, issue demarches, or use diplomatic channels. Yet the Right-Wing organisations rarely direct such demands at the Prime Minister or the Home Minister. Instead, they target Rohingyas because they are vulnerable and lack political protection.
The meeting also repeated the claim that India “is not a dharamshala” and that all “illegal migrants from Bangladesh” must be deported. This argument ignores India’s long history of hosting refugees. According to a report in The Times of India, dated September 8, 2017, citing the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Union government provides support to Sri Lankan Tamil and Tibetan refugees. The Ministry’s Rehabilitation Wing offers accommodation to them apart from electricity, drinking water, sanitation, monthly cash assistance, clothing materials, utensils and subsidised rations. As of January 1, 2016, India is home to 1,01,027 Sri Lankan Tamil refugees. The Union government also allotted Rs ₹8 crore to the Tibetan Relief Committee. These examples show that India has consistently extended humanitarian support when it chooses to do so.
Despite this record, Rohingyas receive little public sympathy. Over the last decade, Right-Wing groups have labelled them “illegal infiltrators” rather than refugees fleeing violence. Their situation is framed through a communal and security lens rather than a humanitarian one. Media coverage has often reinforced this narrative. Sensational headlines repeat claims of crime or terrorism without data, and Rohingya voices are rarely heard. A stateless community is reduced to stereotypes instead of being seen as people.
This is not new. In Jammu, attempts were made to link them to terrorism without evidence. In Assam and parts of West Bengal, they were folded into the larger National Register of Citizens and the Citizenship Amendment Act (NRC–CAA) debate. Rohingyas are frequently conflated with Bangladeshi migrants even though their origins and histories are different. This confusion serves politics better than facts.
Ultimately, the issue is not whether India can host refugees. It has done so for decades. The real question is why one particular group is singled out for hostility. The answer appears to lie more in identity politics than in genuine security concerns.
Constitutional safeguards
The organisers of the Hyderabad event argued before the Telangana High Court that the police could not deny permission for the meeting near the refugee camps in Balapur because Article 19(1) guarantees freedom of speech and assembly. The High Court bench led by Justice NV Shravan Kumar allowed the meeting with conditions, observing that denial would violate the organiser’s rights under Article 19. The Court stated:
“Considering the serious concern regarding the National Security and sensitivity of the issue, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the police to consider the application of the organiser and grant permission.”
This reasoning raises important constitutional questions. When the court itself recognised the issue as sensitive and linked to national security, granting permission for a mass gathering directed against a vulnerable refugee community appears contradictory. Matters of national security ordinarily fall within the responsibility of the state. It is unclear how public mobilisation or street protests can address such concerns.
Further, the decision brings up the balance between fundamental rights. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty to every person, citizen or non-citizen. In contrast, Article 19 freedoms are subject to reasonable restrictions. If a public meeting risks threatening the safety or dignity of refugees, the protection of life and liberty should take precedence over unrestricted speech. Allowing such mobilisation may therefore dilute the State’s duty to protect vulnerable groups and maintain public order.
Back in 1996, in the Chakma refugee case (State of Arunachal Pradesh v. NHRC), the Supreme Court took a firm stand to protect the rights of Chakma refugees, even though the government had adopted an anti-immigrant position. The court stopped their forcible eviction and made it clear that even people labelled as “illegal” immigrants are entitled to equal protection of the law and the basic rights guaranteed under Article 21. It also stressed that the State cannot allow any group to threaten or pressure the Chakmas to leave.
In contrast, in the ongoing Rohingya deportation matters, the Supreme Court has taken a more cautious view. It has said that Rohingya refugees, as foreign nationals, can be deported if they are found to be illegal immigrants, since they do not have a fundamental right to stay in India. At the same time, the Court has recognised that they still enjoy the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and that any deportation must follow the legal procedure laid down under the Foreigners Act.
India does not have a dedicated refugee law and instead relies on the Foreigners Act and executive discretion. Although India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, constitutional protections still apply to all persons within its territory. When permission was granted primarily on free speech grounds, the broader humanitarian implications appear to have received limited consideration.
Are ‘illegal migrants’ a national security threat?
The communal undertone becomes clearer when viewed alongside the Citizenship Amendment Act. On one hand, the government and Right-Wing groups argue that illegal migrants threaten national security. On the other, it offers citizenship to certain non-Muslim migrants while excluding Muslims. This creates a selective system based on religion rather than an objective security assessment. The message that emerges is troubling, some refugees are seen as deserving protection, while others are treated as threats because of their identity. In this context, the Rohingya become easy targets for political mobilisation.
Attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh
Events in Bangladesh must be condemned and addressed through diplomacy. Directing anger at displaced people who fled violence does nothing to protect Hindus there or strengthen national security. Instead, it only deepens the suffering of an already vulnerable community.
It is the responsibility of all justice-loving citizens to speak out against the attacks on Hindus, but it is ultimately the duty of the Indian state to raise the issue firmly through diplomatic channels and send a clear message that violence against any religious minority in South Asia will not be tolerated. Public outrage should therefore be channelled towards pressing the government to take concrete diplomatic steps, not towards targeting refugees within India.
Hate speeches or deportation of Rohingya refugees will not improve the situation in Bangladesh. Such actions will only increase insecurity at home and harm India’s reputation in the international community. We stand in solidarity with Bangladeshi Hindus and urge the Indian government and International human rights organisations, to act promptly and responsibly through appropriate diplomatic measures against Bangladesh.
SQ Masood is a social activist based in Hyderabad.