AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROHINGYA CONTROVERSY

AN ANALYSIS OF THE ROHINGYA CONTROVERSY

Myanmar is a sovereign country, so is India.
Myanmar is a democratic country, so is India.
Myanmar emphasizes ‘equality’ and ‘peace’, so does India.

Myanmar is a small country surrounded by 5 different countries. The relationship between Myanmar and India is been a high point of discussion in the light of Rohingya refugees. Rohingya community comes from Rakhine state of Myanmar where it is deprived of citizenship and basic human rights. Their immigration of this “unaccepted everywhere” people to other countries and the issue of their citizenship have heated up the debate on international platforms. Moreover, being highly politicized in India. Political correctness is being defined in all new terms where it is either being given a religious angle or a humanitarian one.

Rohingyas should not be called migrants firstly, they are “refugees”. A refugee is a person who has fled his state due to some war like situation or suppression. In the name of ‘ethnic cleansing’, they have been forced to move away from their homeland. Secondly, the debate is about 40,000 new refugees which have entered India and not the already existing 14,000 refugee certificate holder Rohingyas in India. The new population is termed to be illegal as they do not hold any card or certificate to reside as refugees.

Indian government recently reflected its intentions to deport Rohingyas back to their country which is apparently for the sake of these refugees. These intentions do not imply denial of equality and personal liberty under article 14 and 21 of the Constitution respectively. However, they imply solution on an international level in expressed terms. In Surbanand Sonowal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court declared that it is the foremost duty of the Government to protect its borders and prevent trespass from other countries which could be a national threat. However, citing the example of Chakmas is completely baseless as it was a matter of migration of ‘Indian citizenship holder migrants (from East-Pakistan, now Bangladesh)’ from Assam to Arunanchal Pradesh. The issue of Rohingyas is about ‘illegal non-citizenship holder’ community crossing Indian border to shelter themselves. In NHRC v. State of Arunanchal Pradesh where the migrated Chakmas’ life and liberty was at stake, the Supreme Court held the duty of state to protect life and liberty of citizens and non-citizens. Clearly, India carries no intention to violate the human rights of any community. It seeks for a solution which settles the unsettled Rohingyas as well as benefits this community by providing them rights in their own homeland.
The reports of the Indian intelligence agencies such as RAW cannot be ignored where it is clearly mentioned that Rohingyas could be associated with terrorist activities. Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) has been reportedly involved in terrorist activities. Even the attack at BodhGaya was suspected to be the done by ARSA. Where terrorist organizations are backing Rohingyas for settlement in India as well as India being already centre to terror motives of these organizations, accepting Rohingyas would be a big security threat. Rohingyas are deprived of basic human rights and facilities which creates enough aggression amongst them to join terror groups.
In diplomatic terms, healthy India-Myanmar relationship is important for the growth and development of North-East India. Myanmar has been very supportive for India’s constructive motive for NE. Indian Economic balance would be exposed to serious risks if Rohingyas are accepted. Moreover, it may also create internal disturbances.

Myanmar’s Citizenship Law, 1982 refuses to recognize many communities in the country as citizens. Rohingyas are one of them. The basic reasons of such ignorance can be traced back to history. Rohingyas were British supporters and even worked as British army. Despite being expressly written in the Myanmar constitution about equality and peace, there is no particular solution to Buddhist-Muslim rivalries in Myanmar. Also, Su Kyi, the noble peace prize winner who fought bravely against army rule in Myanmar is silent about the Rohingyas. Rohingya community is vulnerable, aggressive and involved in terrorism because they were never accepted in their own homeland in any manner. Their plight cannot be denied or ignored. But the solution lies in the hands of international organizations.

Myanmar is a member of ASEAN countries. Stable countries like India can strongly raise their voice towards solution to Myanmar. Also, the responsibility lies on the shoulders of United Nations. Even the refugee certificate obtained by the 14,000 rohingyas pre-existing in several parts of India quotes that “As refugees, they are persons of concern to the Office of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ….” {see attached photograph}. Clearly, UN must force Myanmar to work on its laws and policies for rohingyas rather than expecting any other country to entertain them. Such force over Myanmar must also be maintained in ASEAN. All the neighbors must unite and strictly seal their borders which would subsequently pressurize Myanmar to take feasible steps. Dalai Lama, being a great and influential preacher of Buddhism could be involved towards solution path making.

It is not at all logical or feasible for India to accommodate Rohingyas. An extremist approach to the issue should not be appreciated at this matter of National importance. India is a secular country where the state does not recognize a specific religion and respects all the faith and beliefs which prevail. India, also seeks humanitarian principles since past which lays the very foundation of the idea of country as it exists. National security is the priority of any country of this world. It is the foremost moral principle. Risking the life of existing citizens, allowing a new set of population which could be a threat to security; all in the name of HUMANITARIANISM cannot be justified.  And moreover, they are ‘refugees’ above religion and hereinafter, “Nation” lies above religion.

A step closer to Uniform Civil Code

A step closer to Uniform Civil Code

Article 44 of the Indian Constitution directs the state to secure Uniform Civil Code under the Community Welfare Charter. UCC is something that the whole society should look forward to. Providing a common and uniform platform to the personal matters, it would give a new direction to justice for the ones who suffer the dilemmas of personal laws. Hindu or Muslim, each and every religious practice has the right to prevail; but not when the cost is to be paid with sufferings.

We applauded at the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, declaring instant talaq or ‘triple talaq’ unconstitutional as per Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. However, it is not fortunate to see the reactions some people make against this step.  Muslim women are an important sect of the society who came along collectively opposing the practice of triple talaq. Political turn away seems irreversible in every condition though, but this remains something which requires vision from different dimension for the society. No doubt, there are several other practices which prevail and needs to be removed from society. But this couldn’t be a good defence in favour of triple talaq. Interference is not the right word being used. Rectifying something is not going against the views and beliefs or a particular sect. Hindu law has evolved itself with time. Polygamy, dowry, marital rape, polygamy, maintenance, inheritance rights, right to property, nikah-halala etc etc. There is a list of endless problems which needs redressal. Triple Talaq was one of them which came down. Personal laws give an edge to the beliefs of a particular religion, but it does not completely define a particular religion.

The debate on implementation of Uniform Civil Code has heated up with the decision of scrapping down instant divorce, i.e., triple talaq. The Union Law Ministry seeks the suggestions of the Law commission in this context.  UCC is the need of hour carrying several advantages for communities and society at large. It would ensure gender equality with a vision of unifying the youth towards peace and nation building  Registration of marriages is very essential for UCC to enforce. Also, taking radical decisions on some practices of personal laws should be taken. Judicial Activism is mainly required for this as political instability seems constant on the UCC debate over vote banks and pleasing some sect.


UCC is in no way forcing upon any rituals of one sect on another. It would govern the broad concepts like marriage, divorce, inheritance etc and not the narrow once like rituals, practices and beliefs. We already seek legal assistance and court’s remedy in most of these broader concepts. Then, how could a law ensuring equality for all on these grounds be INTERFERENCE of some sort into personal matters?  We seek Secularism so loudly, then why do we opt against UCC? UCC is one of the best ways to ensure secularism. It would in no way end or hurt the beliefs of any religion. It is a golden way where every religion along with working on its practices and beliefs could be ensured equality and upliftment of sections like women and young children. We have an urge to remove differences between different diversities, then why is our voice so shallow when it comes to gaining equality? It is needed to be understood that UCC is not a one-party agenda; it has been given place in the Constitution of India for a reason. UCC was given place in the Directive Principles of the State Policy with a view that some legislation would be formed for it with time. Society takes time to develop, but we cannot stand on the same place just watching the world run from the window. Mindsets from ground level need to come up to accept the concept of UCC.