Latest news with #Chakmas
News18
5 days ago
- General
- News18
Bangladeshi Rebels Demanding Separate State Detained By Tripura Police
Last Updated: Police officials suspect the detainees are part of a Chakma outfit with past ties to a movement that wanted a separate state out of Bangladesh. Tripura Police on Tuesday night detained 13 injured members of a Bangladesh-based group, including two women, from a rented house near Agartala. The detainees, suspected to be part of a Chakma community organisation active in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, will be pushed back to Bangladesh soon, officials told news agency IANS. According to preliminary reports, the group crossed the international border illegally through Raishyabari in Dhalai district following a violent clash with a rival outfit in Bangladesh's Panchari region last week. Several members have visible injuries, with bandages on their legs and arms. Senior police officials interrogated the group throughout Wednesday before handing them over to the Mobile Task Force (MTF), which later transferred them to the Border Security Force (BSF). A joint repatriation effort is expected soon. The armed clash they fled from is believed to be part of the long-running tensions in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, a region historically affected by ethnic insurgency. The Shanti Bahini insurgency, driven by the Parbatya Chattagram Jana Samhati Samiti (PCJSS), ended formally with a peace accord signed with the Bangladesh government in 1997. The PCJSS, formed in 1972 under Manabendra Narayan Larma, initially pushed for autonomy for the indigenous Jumma peoples of the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Their demands included a separate legislative body for the Chittagong Hill Tracts, constitutional protection for tribal customs, and preservation of traditional leadership. Although the group officially sought autonomy within Bangladesh, elements of its armed wing, the Shanti Bahini, reportedly pursued full sovereignty. Larma had also protested the Bangladesh Constitution's draft, calling for complete separation. The insurgency waged by the Shanti Bahini ended with the 1997 CHT Peace Accord, which granted limited autonomy and led to the group's disarmament. The PCJSS has since operated as a political party, demanding full implementation of the agreement. However, reports of sporadic violence and tension have persisted, particularly following the fall of Sheikh Hasina's Awami League government in August 2024. Since then, there have been multiple allegations of attacks on indigenous communities in the CHT by security forces and illegal settlers. Many Chakmas continue to live under fear of reprisal and political marginalisation. The Chakma people, predominantly Buddhist, are native to the CHT in southeast Bangladesh, as well as Myanmar's Chin and Arakan regions, and several northeastern Indian states. Tripura, which shares an 856-kilometre border with Bangladesh, remains particularly vulnerable to such cross-border movements due to its porous terrain and the ongoing unrest just across the international boundary. First Published: June 04, 2025, 23:24 IST
Indian Express
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
The constitutional case for protecting Rohingya refugees
Last Friday, a division bench of the Supreme Court of India, consisting of justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, refused to stay the alleged deportation of 43 Rohingya refugees. The petition alleged that the Delhi Police had transported the refugees to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and dropped them off in international waters for deportation to Myanmar. The Bench refused to intervene or take cognisance of the telephonic evidence or the UN inquiry report presented to it. The Bench reasoned that the relief sought in this case had been referred to a three-judge Bench and cited the orders of the Chief Justice of India. The case was then scheduled for a hearing before the three-judge Bench on July 31, 2025. Against this backdrop, larger questions emerge regarding the Indian government's outlook on the proliferation of refugee crises worldwide, particularly in India's neighbourhood. The Indian government views Rohingya refugees as a threat to national security, labelling them 'illegal immigrants' and advocating for their deportation. This stance infringes on constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21, read with Article 51(c) of the Constitution. Articles 14 and 21 guarantee the right to equality and the right to life and personal liberty to all persons, including non-citizens, rendering these rights universally applicable and non-excludable. Article 51(c) requires fostering respect for international law and treaty obligations. Therefore, India's ratification of international conventions such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) prohibits the deportation of refugees when there is a serious risk of human rights violations. Constitutional provisions must be interpreted in a manner that aligns with the global human rights regime. This principle, known as non-refoulement, prohibits countries from sending individuals to a territory where they face a threat to their life. It is widely recognised as a fundamental tenet of international law and is accepted by most states as legally binding and non-derogable. The Indian judiciary's stance on refugee rights has been inconsistent. Three cases are most relevant to note. In NHRC vs Arunachal Pradesh, concerning the deportation of the Chakmas (who had migrated from Bangladesh in 1964 and first settled in Assam before settling in Arunachal Pradesh), the Supreme Court ruled that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution applies to all individuals, regardless of citizenship. The Court directed the Arunachal Pradesh government to protect the refugees, fulfil its legal obligations to safeguard the lives of Chakmas in the state, and ensure they were not forcibly evicted. The Court also emphasised the protection of refugees' rights. In Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi vs Union of India, the Gujarat High Court recognised that the principle of non-refoulement is included in Article 21 of the Constitution and underscored India's responsibility to respect international treaties and conventions concerning humanitarian law. The Delhi High Court took a similar stance in Dongh Lian Kham vs Union of India, recognising the principle of non-refoulement as integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. However, this approach seems to have faded as the Supreme Court has now taken a contrary stance on the deportation of the Rohingyas, ruling that the government's right to expel a foreigner is unlimited and absolute. India claims that it is not bound by the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees ('1951 Convention') or the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees ('1967 Protocol') and therefore is not obligated to adhere to Article 33(1) of the 1951 Convention regarding the principle of non refoulement. However, it is imperative to note that this principle applies not only to recognised refugees but also to individuals whose refugee status has not been formally recognised. Refugee status determination is declaratory in nature; a person is recognised as a refugee because they are one, not because of recognition. In the context of Rohingyas in India, India's refusal to recognise them formally should not negate their inherent rights under international humanitarian principles or the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Currently, India's treatment of different refugee populations is based on non-uniform assessments and the nation's geopolitical interests. This approach has resulted in different standards of treatment, protection and assistance for different refugee groups. For example, Tibetan refugees have received a more favourable response, including residence permits, access to education, and government-supported settlement. In contrast, Sri Lankan refugees were housed in camps and faced numerous restrictions. This discretionary approach stems from the absence of a standardised national framework, leaving refugees and their rights at the mercy of those in positions of power. The world order appears to be shifting towards intolerance, with a surge in military conflict, the detrimental impacts of climate change, and geopolitical shifts leading to xenophobic tendencies. In this ever-shifting landscape, the traditional understanding of a 'refugee' — someone fleeing persecution, conflict or violence in their home country — is changing. This is due to the emergence of 'nouveau refugees', such as stateless persons and climate refugees, who do not conform to the traditional understanding of a 'refugee' from the old world order. To extend a non-discriminatory humanitarian hand would pave the way for India's leadership in kindness to forge a new world order of peace. Yanappa leads the Karnataka team at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, where she works on urban governance, education, and data and technology regulations. Ullal is a research fellow at Vidhi, where she works on issues concerning urban governance, education and the environment
