Why India Rejects UN Report Linking Pahalgam Attack to Myanmar Refugees?
India has strongly rejected the recent United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Myanmar Thomas H. Andrews’ report alleging that displaced persons from Myanmar residing in India have been adversely impacted following the April 2025 Pahalgam terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir.
The Indian government dismissed the report as “baseless,” “biased,” and a “blinkered analysis,” stating the claims have absolutely no factual basis and unfairly malign India’s image. India’s statement was delivered by Lok Sabha MP Dilip Saikia during the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly in New York, where he expressed serious objections to the UN Special Rapporteur’s observations linking the Pahalgam attack to displaced persons from Myanmar.
Government Denies Allegation on Refugees’ Vulnerability
Official sources clarified that there is no credible evidence to support the assertion that refugees or displaced persons from Myanmar in India faced additional pressure or threats due to the Pahalgam incident. India stressed that such UN reports appear motivated by unverified narratives rather than objective facts, damaging India’s international image unjustifiably.
India’s Policy on Myanmar Refugees
India does not have a formal refugee law and is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol, which means the country is not legally bound to recognise undocumented immigrants from Myanmar as refugees. Indian authorities deal with these persons under immigration and Foreigners laws, often categorising them as illegal immigrants subject to detention or deportation if found to be without valid documentation. The government’s approach focuses on security concerns alongside humanitarian considerations, allowing no blanket status or protection for all such immigrants.
The government has actively deported some Rohingya refugees, despite international criticism, though courts and rights groups have sometimes intervened to prevent forced returns in individual cases. India’s policy oscillates between humanitarian considerations and concerns about national security, and there has been no categorical national commitment to permanent protection for Myanmar refugees
Supreme Court’s Crucial Observation on UNHCR Refugee Cards
Adding a significant legal dimension to India’s rebuttal of UN reports, the Supreme Court of India recently questioned the authority of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in issuing refugee identity cards within Indian territory. In a landmark judgement, Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi likened the UNHCR’s operations to having “opened a showroom here” distributing refugee certificates freely. The court clarified that these UNHCR-issued cards do not provide legal protection or immunity from deportation under Indian law. This stance underscores the government’s position that refugee status and protection claims must be governed by domestic legal frameworks and not by external UNHCR documentation.
International Law and India’s Obligations
While India upholds certain international human rights commitments, it carefully distinguishes these from the legally binding refugee protections stipulated in the 1951 Convention, which it has not ratified. The principle of non-refoulement, prohibiting return of individuals to countries where they may face persecution, is incorporated under customary international law and domestic human rights instruments. However, this principle does not translate into an unconditional right for illegal immigrants or undocumented persons to remain in India without administrative sanction.
Why the Debate Persists
The clash between international advocacy bodies and India stems from divergent interpretations of obligations toward displaced populations. Proponents argue that India should extend protection and recognise refugees irrespective of national legislation, emphasizing humanitarian responsibilities. India, in contrast, asserts sovereign rights to regulate entry and residence within its borders, ensuring national security and legal order.
