India: Government Arbitrarily Detained & Forcibly Transferred Rohingya Human Rights Defender In Defiance Of U.N. Ruling
The Government of India arbitrarily detained Rohingya human rights defender Mohammad Arfat for more than four years without due process, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention ruled, Fortify Rights said today. The recent ruling, which responds to a complaint filed by Fortify Rights in May 2024, calls on Indian authorities to provide Mohammad Arfat with reparations, prevent future violations, and cooperate with the U.N. Refugee Agency to ensure his protection and potential resettlement.
More than 40 days after the Working Group issued its decision, Indian authorities defied the U.N. ruling, forcibly transferring Mohammad Arfat to another country, where he now remains in hiding due to ongoing threats to his security.
'India's prolonged and arbitrary detention of Mohammad Arfat was both unlawful and unconscionable. He should never have been detained, let alone forcibly transferred out of India following the ruling,' said John Quinley, Director of Fortify Rights. 'The U.N. Working Group's opinion reaffirms what we have known all along—India violated international law by detaining a recognized refugee for years, and then put him even further in harm's way.'
In the published opinion, adopted during its 101st session, the U.N. Working Group determined that India's detention of Mohammad Arfat since 2018 was arbitrary, lacked any legal basis, and deprived him of due process. The opinion finds that his detention was based solely on his status as a Rohingya refugee and that India violated key provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)—to which India is a state party and legally bound to uphold— including Articles 9 and 14, which protect against arbitrary detention and ensure the right to a fair trial.
Upon his release from arbitrary detention, Mohammad Arfat told Fortify Rights:
I was beaten by Indian police when I was first detained. … My health [after years] in Indian detention was not good, and I could not see a doctor. I became very sick over the years. … Now [after my release and transfer] I feel mentally and physically unwell.
The U.N. Working Group is a body of independent human rights experts established by the U.N. Human Rights Council to investigate and provide opinions on cases of deprivation of liberty that are allegedly arbitrary or inconsistent with international standards.
Fortify Rights filed the 20-page complaint to the Working Group on May 30, 2024, along with an annex of more than 90 pages supporting Mohammad Arfat's case and his right to liberty. The U.N. Working Group's opinion in response to Fortify Rights' submission expressed grave concern for Mohammad Arfat and recommended that Indian authorities:
[E]nd the arbitrary detention of Mr. Arfat by immediately and unconditionally releasing him and to liaise with UNHCR to grant him protection and a remedy, befitting his status as an asylum-seeker, which could include resettlement in a third country.
The U.N. Working Group also recommended that the Indian government provide 'compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law,' for the harm caused to Mohammad Arfat, and that those responsible for the violation of his rights be held accountable, urging the Government 'to ensure a full and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Mr. Arfat and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his rights.' Instead, India forcibly transferred Mohammad Arfat to another country shortly after the ruling.
In addition to Mohammad Arfat's case, beginning on May 6, 2025, Fortify Rights documented how Indian authorities carried out mass arrests of Rohingya refugees in New Delhi. The next day, the authorities forced at least 40 of them back to Myanmar, where the military junta has been carrying out a genocidal campaign and where the Arakan Army — an ethnic resistance army fighting the Myanmar military junta in an ongoing revolution — has also carried out atrocities against the Rohingya people. In this instance, the India Navy dumped the refugees into the sea near the Myanmar border, placing their lives at grave risk in violation of international law.
During the same crackdown, India also forcibly deported other Rohingya refugees to Bangladesh, which hosts more than one million Rohingya refugees in crowded and tightly controlled camps.
On May 15, 2025, Tom Andrews, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, called India's forcing Rohingya into the sea 'unconscionable' and 'outrageous' and, in response, he launched an inquiry. Andrews said in a statement that forced returns to Myanmar are a 'serious violation of the principle of non-refoulment, a fundamental tenet of international law that prohibits states from returning individuals to a territory where they face threats to their lives or freedom.'
Furthermore, on March 3, three U.N. experts, including Special Rapporteur Andrews, raised concerns about India's 'widespread, arbitrary and indefinite detention of refugees from Myanmar' in a letter to the Indian government:
Conditions in places of detention are reportedly dire. Detainees from Myanmar, the majority of whom are Rohingya, are reportedly held in severely overcrowded cells, and do not receive adequate nutrition, clean water, or medical care. Facilities are reportedly unsanitary. Detainees lack clean clothes, bedding, and access to sunlight. Many detainees are reportedly suffering from illness, infections and other medical problems and are unable to access adequate medical care.
India must immediately end its arbitrary and indefinite detention of refugees and provide reparations to all harmed by the government's reckless and violent crackdown on their rights, said Fortify Rights.
India is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention nor its 1967 Protocol and lacks a domestic asylum law; however, it remains obligated to respect the international customary law principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the forced return of refugees to situations where they are likely to face persecution and other serious human rights abuses. India's forcible return of Rohingya refugees to Myanmar—where they face grave risks of persecution, violence, or death—also violates several international treaties to which India is a state party, including the ICCPR (Articles 6, 7, and 9), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Articles 6 and 22), and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Article 5).
Forcibly returning Rohingya refugees to Myanmar also violates the Genocide Convention, to which India is a state party, said Fortify Rights. By returning victims of genocide to a country where that genocide is ongoing, India may be failing in its obligation to prevent genocide under international law. Moreover, by knowingly contributing to the continuing genocide through the forced return of survivors, India risks legal complicity in the very crimes the Convention is meant to prevent.
'India has legal obligations to protect Rohingya refugees under treaties it willfully entered into,' said John Quinley. 'India should immediately and unconditionally free all refugees in detention and provide compensation for any harms inflicted.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
United Nations Urged To Investigate New Zealand's Rollback On Women's Pay Equity Rights
The Pay Equity Coalition Aotearoa (PECA) has informed the Prime Minister and other relevant parties that it has made an urgent appeal to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) to investigate what it calls a 'historic and deliberate regression' of women's economic and political rights in Aotearoa New Zealand. In a formal submission, PECA outlines how the Coalition Government's Equal Pay Amendment Act 2025 has dismantled the country's pay equity system, cancelling 33 live claims covering more than 180,000 women, many of whom are low-paid essential workers in care, health, education, and public services. 'This is the most significant rollback of women's rights in over a generation,' said Dame Judy McGregor, speaking on behalf of the coalition. 'These changes breach New Zealand's obligations under CEDAW and other international human rights treaties. They were made without consultation, under urgency, and with no democratic process.' The submission reveals that $12.8 billion previously set aside to address pay equity claims has been diverted by the government for other budgetary purposes. At the same time, settled claims had their legally agreed review clauses removed, and women are now barred from raising new claims for a decade. Violation of International Human Rights The coalition argues that the government's actions breach Article 11 of CEDAW, which guarantees women the right to equal pay for work of equal value, as well as Article 2(3)(a) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which ensures access to effective legal remedies. 'What we are witnessing is state-sanctioned gender pay discrimination,' said McGregor. 'And there are now no domestic legal remedies left for many of these women. This is a full-scale retreat from fairness, accountability, and our international commitments.' Call for a UN Visit and Monitoring PECA has formally requested the Commission on the Status of Women to: • Conduct a country visit to hear directly from affected women, including Māori, Pacific, and migrant workers; • If a visit is not feasible, undertake a desk-based investigation and independent monitoring report; • Place New Zealand's regression on the international agenda to ensure accountability for the erosion of women's rights. 'New Zealand has been held up as a global leader in gender equality. That reputation is now at serious risk,' said McGregor. 'This government has not only abandoned its legal obligations — it has silenced the voices of women, ignored civil society, and turned its back on a generation of progress.' PECA's membership includes major trade unions and national women's organisations such as E Tū, NZNO, PSA, Aotearoa Women's Watch, YWCA Aotearoa, National Council of Women, and many others committed to gender equity. 'This is not just a domestic issue. The world is watching,' McGregor added. 'And we invite the international community to stand with New Zealand women in demanding that justice be restored.'
NZ Herald
4 days ago
- NZ Herald
Islamabad has long dreamed of finding enough oil to turn around Pakistan's fortunes
'Who knows,' he mused, 'maybe they'll be selling Oil to India some day!' The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) has estimated that Pakistan might hold 9.1 billion barrels of recoverable oil - a figure cited frequently by Pakistani officials to court foreign investors. These reserves have not been proved, cautioned Afia Malik, an energy researcher in Pakistan. The country's proven reserves are far smaller - they place it around 50th globally, behind such countries as Romania, Vietnam, and Brunei. Pakistan produced fewer than 100,000 barrels of oil per day in 2023, according to the EIA, far less than the world's top producers. The US, with around 13 million barrels per day, ranked first. After a long history of setbacks and failures, few in Pakistan believe it will ever become an oil exporter. 'Red tape, political interference, and bureaucratic inefficiencies' have deterred foreign investors and limited progress, Malik said. Trump suggested that new investment would come from private US sources. 'We are in the process of choosing the Oil Company that will lead this Partnership,' he wrote. The most ambitious attempt ended in 2019, when a consortium that included ExxonMobil searched off Karachi but found no oil or gas deposits. A Pakistani refiner said last week that it had struck an agreement for its first import of US crude oil. 'As the President said, Pakistan and the US will work together on developing their massive oil reserves, which will strengthen economic security for both of our countries,' White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said. Pakistani officials have welcomed Trump's announcement to resume the search for oil. 'If there's investment coming in from countries like the US, China, others, we would like to welcome that,' Power Minister Awais Leghari told the Washington Post. 'It is good to see that on the radar of President Trump.' Among commentators in Pakistan, disbelief and, in some cases, mockery have prevailed. Some suspect Trump is sending a message to neighbouring India, Pakistan's more populous and more economically influential arch-rival. 'Pakistan may simply be a leverage point, rather than the main beneficiary of this engagement,' political analyst Hasan Askari Rizvi said. Relations between the Trump Administration and the Indian Government have faltered in recent months over trade. Trump said last week that he will double the tariff on goods from India to 50% because of the country's continued purchase of Russian oil. While some here doubt that Pakistan is a priority to Trump, officials say they have noticed an improvement in relations with Washington. When days of border fighting between India and Pakistan in May threatened to escalate to all-out war, the Administration brokered a ceasefire. Trump hosted powerful army chief Asim Munir for lunch at the White House, and Islamabad said it would nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. The renewed American interest in Pakistan, some analysts suspect, might be less about oil than access to minerals and rare earths. Pakistan is believed to hold large and unexplored deposits of the rare earths that are crucial for consumer electronics and defence technology. Amid escalating trade tensions between the US and China, a key rare earth supplier, the Trump Administration has shown growing interest in Pakistan's mines. US officials attended the Pakistan Minerals Investment Forum in April. But as with oil, most of Pakistan's mineral deposits are unexplored and could be difficult to exploit. China is building a nearly 3220km road, rail, and pipeline network to link the Chinese border in northern Pakistan, resource-rich western Pakistani provinces and a deep-sea port in the south, but the work has been hampered by growing insecurity. Islamabad is concerned about the rising militancy of the Pakistani Taliban in the northwestern province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Separatist groups in the southwestern province of Baluchistan, meanwhile, are escalating their fight against the Government. Baluch separatists claimed responsibility last week for an attack on two mining trucks in the province. The militants warned that anyone 'involved in the looting of Baloch national resources' or transporting minerals would be considered a legitimate target. Some former Pakistani officials worry that the rising security challenges are fuelled by a sense of disenfranchisement shared not only by radicalised militants but also ordinary people. When oil or minerals were extracted in the past, locals rarely reaped the rewards. 'Serious efforts were never made to engage them as mutual partners,' said G.A. Sabri, a former top official in the Petroleum Ministry. Sabri hopes Pakistani officials have learned their lesson. But as the Government seeks foreign investment, it has introduced legislation to expand its control over mineral extraction, giving more cause for local grievances. 'When local communities see tangible benefits from exploration,' said Malik, 'they are more likely to take ownership of its security and success.'
Otago Daily Times
4 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Time those who can and would are given something to do
Everyone has the right to work, Randal Scott writes. Iain dropped in to see us on Saturday night. He's pretty depressed at the moment and can't see why it's worth living any more. What's the point when you wake up every morning and have nothing to do? One of the absurdities of our time is that people in employment often complain about having too much to do while more than 100,000 Kiwis do nothing. Our communities are full of individuals who are able-bodied or able-minded, or both, and desperately want to make a contribution. Our current economic model, introduced in the 1980s, deliberately creates a level of unemployment that suppresses wages and reduces inflation. It is a cruel policy tool that wastes human potential and drives people like Iain to despair. A previous administration talked about basing its policies on kindness, but what is kind about paying people every week to not participate in the society they are part of? It must be very discouraging to be told to go job-hunting for roles that have been outsourced overseas. Globalisation has brought us cheap food and goods at the expense of the manufacturing sector in New Zealand. The same people who complain about the cost of "dole-bludgers" are more than happy to contribute to their demise by buying cheap food, clothing and other items that are produced by labourers in other countries. There is so much meaningful work that could be done by people who receive Jobseeker Support. As a country, we could recycle more, we could have cleaner towns and cities, we could do a better job of maintaining infrastructure, and we could improve our productivity by freeing up skilled hands to do their essential work. I would like to see the government replace all benefits with part-time jobs for people who would work 20 hours a week. To be clear, this wouldn't be a "work for the dole scheme", because allowances for unemployed people would no longer exist. Instead of being paid to live on the fringes of our society, people without jobs could be gainfully employed by government agencies, schools and community groups like sports clubs. Councils around the country would receive funding from the government to employ people on an as-needed basis — when the economy was contracting the number of these employees would rise, but the private sector would employ many of these workers whenever the economy was expanding. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment." I believe current government policies are a breach of this statement because even in times of low unemployment there are more than 50,000 New Zealanders with no paid work to do. It is morally repugnant to pay people to do nothing when there is so much important work to be done and so many potential benefits for our society. If everyone had a reason to get out of bed in the morning we could expect to see reduced crime, improved mental health outcomes across the population and a greater sense of social cohesion. And I'm sure this policy would save significant amounts of money in the long run. We wouldn't have to talk about NEETs (young people not engaged in education, employment or training) anymore because everyone could leave school knowing there was a job to go to. It is time to radically change the way we structure our society to ensure everyone contributes to our shared life through work. Anything less is a moral and fiscal failure. — Randal Scott is a trained youth pastor, secondary school teacher and mental health support worker.
