Bangladesh Hindus: Why is India reluctant to give shelter to Bangladeshi Hindus? Consider this a sign of change in policy

New Delhi: On August 5, during the massive uprising in Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina made an appeal to the Indian government. She sought permission to enter Indian territory. The Indian government decided to give her safe passage. This was the only option available at that time. The Indian government’s decision was based on India’s years-old friendly relations with Hasina. Her campaign against religious extremism and terrorism was also taken into account. Hasina had taken strong action against anti-India terrorist organizations in Bangladesh. However, after this the Indian government refused to give refuge to Bangladeshi Hindu minorities. This was completely opposite to its earlier stance. The article published in the Indian Express states that India has always been the natural home for suffering Hindus from all over the world. There are constant reports of religious persecution on minority communities in Bangladesh. Many Hindu teachers have been forced to resign. Other officials and academics are being racially harassed. Since August 5, more than 205 attacks have taken place on people of minority communities in Bangladesh. The death of 5 people has been confirmed in these. “We are receiving reports of vandalism, intimidation and telephone threats from 52 out of 64 districts. We are constantly trying to verify them,” Nem Chandra Bhowmick, president of the Bangladesh Hindu, Buddhist, Christian Unity Council, said in an interview.

CAA is now the law of the country, then why the hesitation?

The article states that the denial of asylum to persecuted minority groups is also incomprehensible because the same government recently enacted the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. The CAA is now the law of the land. It allows religious minorities – Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan who came to India before December 31, 2014 – to apply for Indian citizenship on the grounds of religious persecution in their respective countries. The central government, though bound by its own deadlines in extending the benefits of this law, could still provide temporary shelter to persecuted Bangladeshi minorities seeking asylum.

The government’s stance has changed

This stance of the government is completely different from its earlier stance. Even some prominent supporters of the BJP have started raising questions as to why the government is not accepting the victim Hindus despite growing evidence of atrocities. However, the chances of the victim minority Hindus getting shelter are very low. Many government officials and NDA members and supporters are also expressing a lot of concern about this. Home Minister Amit Shah has responded, ‘In view of the ongoing situation in Bangladesh, the Modi government has constituted a committee to monitor the conflict-torn country and the India-Bangladesh border. This committee will maintain contact with its counterpart officials in Bangladesh to ensure the safety of Indian citizens, Hindus and other minority communities living there. The ADG of Border Security Force, Eastern Command will be the chairman of this committee.’ According to reports, the government has deployed BSF personnel on the border. These soldiers peacefully stopped hundreds of Bangladeshi Hindus from entering India.

Is India following a different policy?

India’s refusal to grant asylum to persecuted Hindus and other minority groups is in stark contrast to its record of always welcoming refugees. The recent attacks on minorities in Bangladesh provide a strong legal basis for granting asylum, even though India has not signed the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees or its 1967 Protocol. Non-signing does not absolve India of its responsibility under international law to provide necessary assistance to asylum seekers.

Where is the problem?

India had sheltered ten million East Pakistani refugees in the wake of the Liberation War in the then East Pakistan, most of whom returned to their homes in the newly independent Bangladesh. India had not signed the 1951 Convention even then. The number of Bangladeshi nationals seeking asylum this time was much less. The difference in historical contexts then and now is also evident. It was appreciated across the world that India, despite being a poor developing country and without any international assistance, could shelter such a large number of refugees, it was seen as a welcoming, proactive and sensitive towards people in dire need of help. Earlier India had also welcomed Tibetan, Chakma and other smaller groups of refugees. Given the backdrop of the past, India’s current reluctance to shelter religious minority groups indicates a major shift in policy.