The presence of “illegal” foreigners—alternatively described as law offenders, migrants, asylum seekers, or refugees—has long remained a significant issue in India. However, recent assertive measures adopted by the central government in New Delhi reflect a marked shift in approach, signalling that the situation on the ground has changed drastically. Unofficial estimates suggest that India, with its population exceeding a billion, currently shelters around 20 million people from neighbouring countries such as Pakistan, Nepal, Tibet, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and Bangladesh.
Among these, the entry of Pakistani and Bangladeshi nationals without valid documentation has consistently been viewed by India’s majority Hindu population through the lens of national security, demographic anxiety, and potential for social unrest. This perception hardened after the terror attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir, on 22 April, in which 26 civilians lost their lives at the hands of Islamist militants believed to have Pakistani links.
The attack triggered nationwide outrage, with public demands for a strong response. In turn, India launched Operation Sindoor on 7 May, targeting terrorist bases in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and deeper inside Pakistan. A bilateral ceasefire understanding was established on 10 May, yet public anger, particularly against Pakistan, remains deeply entrenched.
Notably, this national mood has also turned hostile towards undocumented Bangladeshi nationals and Rohingya refugees. The resulting pressure compelled the Indian government to direct all States and Union Territories to identify suspected illegal migrants within their jurisdictions. India, it must be noted, is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol and thus has no legal obligation under international law to protect refugees. Still, Indian society has historically shown moral support to displaced people, inspired by the ancient Vedic principle of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, which envisions the world as one family.
The judiciary, too, has weighed in. On 4 February, the Supreme Court pulled up the Assam government for failing to deport declared foreign nationals held at the Matia detention centre. Again on 8 May, it rejected a plea to halt deportations of illegal Rohingya migrants, asserting that the right to reside in India is reserved exclusively for its citizens. In a further observation on 19 May, the apex court firmly stated that India cannot operate as a dharamshala—a shelter home—for foreign nationals.
These developments have prompted both the Centre and various state governments to take tangible action against individuals who have either entered India illegally or overstayed valid visas.
Presently, around 40,000 Rohingya are reportedly living in Indian states including Telangana, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, and Jammu & Kashmir. Most are originally from Myanmar’s Rakhine (Arakan) State and fled following military crackdowns in 2016 and 2017. Their chances of returning home have diminished further after Myanmar’s February 2021 military coup and the continued armed conflicts between the junta and ethnic militias like the Arakan Army.
The issue regained national spotlight when Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma announced via social media on 10 May that his government had initiated pushbacks of Rohingya and other undocumented migrants into Bangladesh. He added that all illegal Bangladeshi migrants and declared foreign nationals, including Rohingyas, would be deported under a new “pushback policy” without engaging in prolonged legal procedures. Thereafter, reports surfaced of migrants brought from Delhi being sent toward the Bangladesh border.
This move drew sharp reactions from Dhaka, which claimed that over 1,000 individuals had been forced across the border since 7 May. Some among them had lived in India for years, with children born in India holding Indian citizenship by birth. Bangladesh has formally urged India to conduct citizenship verification before undertaking deportations. Responding to these concerns, India’s Ministry of External Affairs recently submitted a list of 2,365 suspected Bangladeshi nationals to Dhaka for verification. A spokesperson stated that confirmed individuals would be deported accordingly.
On the procedural front, Hitesh Devsarma, a retired IAS officer from Guwahati who oversaw the National Register of Citizens (NRC) update process in Assam, believes that undocumented Bangladeshi and other migrants can be effectively identified using the NRC’s established methodology. According to Devsarma, over 1.9 million people were excluded from the NRC draft list, which still awaits final endorsement.
However, it must also be mentioned that the NRC—touted as a definitive exercise to weed out illegal migrants—turned into a chaotic and Kafkaesque ordeal, particularly for Assam’s minorities and marginalised communities. Its implementation subjected countless individuals to arbitrary and often inexplicable scrutiny. Elderly citizens, women, and daily wage earners were forced to navigate a complex bureaucratic labyrinth, often without access to proper documentation or legal aid. Many genuine Indian citizens were excluded from the final list despite possessing valid documents—victims not of fraud, but of administrative errors, misidentifications, and flawed procedures.
The psychological toll has been severe. Reports emerged of immense mental distress, social ostracisation, and even suicides linked to NRC-related anxieties. The fear of being labelled a “foreigner” has caused lasting trauma in communities that have lived in Assam for generations. The exclusion of over 1.9 million people sparked widespread outrage and despair, with many alleging they had been wrongfully declared foreigners due to data entry errors, mismatched documents, or the manipulation of software systems.
Alarmingly, even key proponents of the NRC process eventually distanced themselves from its outcome. The list was criticised by security experts, civil society, and legal scholars across the country for its inconsistencies, poor data integrity, and discriminatory impact. Allegations of tampered software and collusion added further disrepute to the exercise. The NRC is now in cold storage, with no clear path forward. Meanwhile, thousands have turned to the courts, seeking to challenge their exclusion and reclaim their right to belong.
