LEGAL ACTIVISM AND THE POLITICS OF HUMAN RIGHTS

 

Around forty thousand Rohingyas are said to be living across India in Jammu, Hyderabad, Assam, North East states, Delhi, and Mewat. The number of those Rohingyas who surreptitiously merged with the local populace in other small townships is unknown. To escape the military crackdown of the Myanmar government, from 1992 onwards, lakhs of Rohingyas fled to Bangladesh to save themselves from ethnic cleansing. Gradually, in the preceding years, small groups of these Rohingyas crossed over from the Bangladesh border to the surrounding areas of Assam, West Bengal, and the North East regions. As the number of Rohingyas increased and their presence became noticeable in slums and shanty towns, there was a public outcry. Consequently, a Public Interest Litigation was filed in the Supreme Court for the deportation of illegal migrants. The highest court ruled that the government’s policy was not to support illegal immigration but to deport illegal migrants lawfully. The increased presence of Rohingyas was felt in many regions, especially in Jammu, where the local populace feared danger to the demographic composition. They came out on the streets to register their protest against the illegal occupation of land on the roadside in Jammu by Rohingyas. Eventually, in 2017, the Central Government took serious note of this illegal influx and asked states to initiate deportation processes for all illegal immigrants, including Rohingyas. The action of the government was challenged by three Rohingya refugees in the Supreme Court. The central government submitted an affidavit giving the number of Rohingyas in India, and security risk and economic pressure were given as the reasons for their deportation. Top lawyers from the Supreme Court lined up to defend the Rohingyas and were to oppose the deportation policy of the Indian state. For example, prominent lawyer KapilSibal’s appearance in the Supreme Court to challenge the Assam government’s policy on deporting illegal immigrants seems to obstruct efforts to curb illegal immigration. The Assam Chief Minister invoked the 1950 law to identify illegal immigrants and facilitate their deportation, which had already received approval from the highest court. Assam was flooded with a steady influx of immigrants from neighbouring countries for decades, reducing the native Assamese population. Sibal’s attempt to interfere by seeking the Court’s intervention to halt the enforcement of the 1950 law was unwarranted. As the Chief Minister of Assam, it is crucial to consider the administrative and security concerns vital for the state’s progress and development. Stopping the illegal incursion of refugees from Bangladesh and Myanmar into Assam through the borders was essential. To prevent further infiltration, the Assam Chief Minister had to take strict measures to warn potential infiltrators. KapilSibal, as a leading lawyer, has filed a petition in the Supreme Court to stay the Assam Government’s actions and impede the deportation process, allowing the flow of illegal entrants to continue. Such unnecessary intervention by the highest court is certainly harmful to the national interest. A prominent Supreme Court lawyer and RajyaSabha member of the Congress party, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, opposed the Immigration and Foreigners Bill of 2025 because it regards all foreigners as potential criminals. Under this bill, foreigners were to be investigated with considerable suspicion on grounds of national security, sovereignty, and integrity of India. Rohingya Human Rights Initiative, an NGO supported by the legal advocacy of senior advocates Colin Gonsalves and Prashant Bhushan, filed a petition in the highest court of the  country challenging the legality of deporting Rohingya back to Myanmar when they were not safe there. They further pleaded with the court for the unconditional admission of their children into schools and for them to be treated on par with other students without discrimination. While arguing the Public Interest Litigation, advocate Prashant Bhushan quoted the UN Special Rapporteur’s contention that the Rohingyas should not be deported under international law. In the case of admitting the Rohingya children into schools, the bench judges directed the Delhi authorities of the Delhi government to grant admission to Rohingya children holding a United Nations Human Rights card in a public school. Colin Gonzales’ Human Rights Law Network is believed to be linked with a global organisation, “Open Society Foundation” of George Soros. Ashwani Kumar, senior advocate at the Supreme Court, former Union Minister of Law and Justice of India, RajyaSabha member, and human rights crusader, opposed the policy of deporting Rohingyas from India at a symposium organised by the National Law School in December 2018. He criticised the argument that the Rohingyas pose a security threat and cause a financial burden on India, stating it did not reflect the truth. He further said that it amounts to escaping a humanitarian and constitutional obligation that the Indian state had assumed under Article 21. Therefore, the Indian Parliament needed to bring a law which would provide better protection to Rohingyas as per the UN convention. Sanjay Hegde, a senior lawyer at the Supreme Court and a Human Rights campaigner, criticised India’s drive of deportation as lawless, giving the plea that people were not to be deported if there was no country to accept them. Kavita Srivastava, President, People’s Union of Civil Liberties, stated that the deportation of Rohingyas was a flagrant violation of the constitutional norms and international humanitarian principles. Prominent lawyers such as Fall S. Nariman argued for granting long-term visas, employment opportunities, and the right to study at educational institutions to Rohingyas in India. He told the Supreme Court that the Central Government’s decision to deport all Rohingyas was unreasonable. Similarly, the West Bengal Commission for Protecting Child Rights filed another writ petition against the Central Government’s stance of pushing Rohingyas back to Myanmar. The government’s policy was described as inhumane, and it refused to send Rohingya children back to Myanmar. This group of legal persons appeared before the Supreme Court to defend the Human Rights of illegal Rohingyas by obtaining a stay on the central government’s deportation process. They were well aware that Rohingyas were unauthorised immigrants. Their stay posed a risk not only to national security but also endangers demographic balances, with an increase in the population of an already populated country. It has multiple ramifications in terms of the law and order problem, social tension, and for the administration, which was much stretched with manifold responsibilities. Critics claim that human rights loyalists like KapilSibal, PrashantBushan, and other legal experts take up the mandate of anyone or anything detrimental to the welfare of our nation. They are sentinels of everything that stands out to disturb and destroy the peace, prosperity, and harmony of our country. Critics opined that they were not motivated by pecuniary gains; they have amassed an unimaginable quantity of wealth for generations. Question arises, if they are Human Rights fighters in the right sense of humanist endeavour and have no mundane craving, why did they not take up the case of Kashmiri Hindus’ Human Rights violation from 1989-90 in the same zeal and zest, the way they were vociferous for Rohingyas, Bangladeshi? Kashmiri Hindu men were brutally killed. Their women were raped. A woman’s body was sliced on an electric wood-cutting band saw machine after her three kidnappers raped her. Another woman from Sopore was made a sex slave for a week and later killed. Her body was thrown in the river Jehlum with stones tied to her limbs to make the body sink to the lower bed of the river. Their houses were set ablaze. Their dwellings were ransacked and looted. Their temples were vandalised. Age-old temple Idols were defaced and thrown in the nearby waterway. Does this targeting of a particular religious follower and their places of worship not constitute a Human Rights violation? Why was there deliberate silence by these legal experts on the Kashmiri Hindus’ Human Rights violations? Does this mean they are selective on the Humanist Cause? Or do they have some diabolic design inthe fight for the Rohingyas / Bangladeshis, illegal immigrants, deportation, or challenge the Citizenship Amendment Act, National Register of Citizens for their self-aggrandisement?

DISCLAIMER:                                                                     

The views expressed in the Article above are   SURINDER KOUL views and kashmiribhatta.in is not in any way responsible for the opinions expressed in the above article. The article belongs to its respective owner or owners and this site does not claim any right over it. Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing."

Courtesy:  SURINDER KOUL and  Spade A Spade 2025