Global Development Institute podcast
Global Development Institute podcast
In Conversation: Monika Verma on Securitisation and the Rohingya Community in India
In this episode, visiting postdoctoral scholar Monika Verma (Palacký University Olomouc) sits down with GDI's Ibrahim Efe to discuss her research on the securitization of migration in India, focusing specifically on the case of the Rohingya community. Monika discusses the background to her research, the meaning of securitization in a migration context, and how it affects the daily lives of Rohingya refugees.
Find out more about the Global Development Institute:
Intro music Anna Banana by Eaters
Speaker 1 [00:00:02] Welcome to the Global Development Institute podcast. Based at the University of Manchester, we're Europe's largest research and teaching institute addressing poverty and inequality. Each episode, we'll bring you the latest thinking, insights and debate in development study.
Speaker 2 [00:00:28] Hello and welcome to this podcast. My name is Dr. Ibrahim Efe and today I am delighted to be joined by Dr. Monica Verma, a migration scholar whose research explores the politics of forced displacement in South Asia with a particular focus on the Rohingya. Monica is a postdoctoral fellow at the Myanmar Studies Center, Department of Asian Studies, Pulaski University in the Czech Republic. She joined the Center in 2024 after completing her PhD at National Yang Ming Chow Tung University, Taiwan. Her work critically investigates how displaced communities like the Rohingya are constructed as security threats and systematically marginalized. Her current project, the Securitisation of Migration and its impact on Rohingyas in India, draws on fieldwork across multiple cities including Delhi, Haryana, Mathura, Jamal and Haydar Abad. It explores how legal ambiguity, constrained mobility, denial of documentation and institutional narratives produced by forms of exclusion. Monika, welcome, and thank you for being here.
Speaker 3 [00:01:35] Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 2 [00:01:36] So to start us off, what motivated your research on the securitization of migration in India, specifically in relation to the Rohingya community and in the last meeting you presented this research to us and the concept securidization is a robust concept. I mean, it's fascinating, but it's also a bit hard to, you know, understand when first hear it. So would you please elaborate on this concept as well? How do you define it? How do use it in your research?
Speaker 3 [00:02:07] Yes, so when I was like doing my doctoral research, securitization, that's the time when I came across with this term securitation and then I decided to make it one of the chapters in my thesis and it was very fascinating when I were studying the case of Rohingyas in India. I was trying to analyze their livelihoods, how it's entangled with the politics in Indian politics and how this all is affecting their day-to-day lives and all. And I found out that securitization of migration is playing actually a very significant role in this case. So yeah, that's how I came across with this concept. And, when I talk about securitization, The first question is, yeah, it's a very important question that what is securitization? So it's actually, it is a process. Securitisation is a a process where any normal political issue can be constructed as a security concern. So it is, it a very constructive phenomenon, right? Anything can be construction from normal political issues to a securitate concern or issue. And then extraordinary measures can be taken. So like, you know, can be identification of refugees, detention, deportation, what kind of like, depends like what kind extraordinary measures the state or any other actors wants to take, right? So very important thing to know when we talk about securitization that who are these actors? Like who is going to frame, right. Who is going to frame the securitization process. So these actors can be political leaders, government, media channels, any entity can be termed as a securitating actor. And the second thing that is very important that we have to know what is we are going to securitate, what is this thing that is in danger, why we need this securitization. So this can be national identity, this can a public order, cultural identity, anything can be secured or which is in threat that needs to be secured. So the case of Rohingyas in India was pretty much fit into this case, like how the the state started, you know, saying that Rohingyas are threat to the national security of India, you know. And they are threat the public order and all those stuff. So for me, I realized that, you now, to study that how a migration is securitized, it's very important when when I'm studying the case of Rojas in India, so yeah.
Speaker 2 [00:05:20] Thank you, Dr. Menke. It seems to me that this concept of securitization, when it's applied to rangers, it makes perfect sense, I mean, the way different actors, when they come together to securitate a group of refugees and how they are sort of excluded from society. And it is very similar to what's happening to other refugees, for example, Syrian refugees in Turkey and in the Middle East, as that's my, you know, subject right now. But I would like to turn our gaze towards India back again and to look at the broader policy environment there. Could you walk us through India's legal and policy framework on refugees?
Speaker 3 [00:06:04] Yeah, sure. So when I talk about India's refugee policy, it's very important to mention that India do not have any refugee policy. There is no domestic framework. So India lacks a formal national framework when it comes to refugees. And also India is not part of the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Refugees Protocol. So all the issues related to refugees or any other categories in this context are dealt on ad hoc basis, like very temporary basis, case by case basis. And in this case, when you don't have any legal framework or any domestic framework, state plays a big role in deciding that which kind of community is being given shelter or who is not, in determining like what would be the fate of these communities. So it's a very strong hold that the state. In this kind of situation.
Speaker 2 [00:07:27] So, since India is not a part to general conversion, it has developed as you have said, an ad-hoc approach to Rohingya refugees. And within that framework, how has the situation been dealt with by the Indian government? Is there a sort of a migration-bench office or is the state overlooking all the affairs regarding the refugees?
Speaker 3 [00:07:58] So, let me start from the very beginning, how it started happening. So, the migration of Rohingyas in India was started after 2000, right? Even though some of them, you know, started coming after 1982, that law that was in Myanmar that Rohingya was excluded from the 1982 citizenship After that they started migrating to Bangladesh and also there are chances that they also came, some of them came to India but most of like a significant number according to the data now there are 40,000 Rohingyas in India and mostly they came after 2000. But the presence of Rohingyas in India was invisible until 2012. So in 2012, hundreds of Rohingya refugees, they staged a protest in New Delhi, asking for their refugee rights and their legal stay in India. So after this protest, they were given refugee status by the UNHCR in India, and also after this protests, they were giving long-term visa by the... FRRO office which is the Foreigner Regional Registration Office in India. So this is in 2012. But what happened that this was also the time when this issue was picked up by some you know right wing organizations and they started portraying this issue you know that these people are illegal you know migrants and they are trying to create a demographic imbalance and they, the most important thing that they kind of, you know, merged this Rohingya issue with the Bangladeshi migrants in India. So you know, these two issues were one issue for them. And also there were statements saying that Rohingyas came in India with malintentions, you know they are. Engage in illegal activities and all. So, yeah, on the one hand, they were given refugee status by the UNHCR and on the second hand, some right-wing organizations were, you know, trying to portray a very different image of Rohingyas in India. But after 2014, so, In 2014, our government changed and the NDA led BJP government came into power. And after this NDL and BJP government came into power, a lot of political leaders and state officials, they started saying, coming to the media and they started saying that Rohingyas are illegal migrants and there should be policies to identify them. Deport them because they are illegal. So, yeah, so the scenario, you know, it's it changed very, very fast in within a few years. And and then this whole securitization process started after 2014. And there were cases around 2017 and 18 that the first group of Rohingya people, like... Were deported to Myanmar. So it was, you know, it has changed all this scenario of Rohingya in India.
Speaker 2 [00:11:52] Thank you very much. Thank you for the historical exploration as well. It's very interesting to be here about the crisis has unfolded in India throughout the process. But it's also interesting to understand how actually your work interacts with this crisis. Because I know that you also examine narratives that are produced by different actors and media outlets in India. Could you please explain us how these narratives are being promoted by the state actors and media outlets around the religion and the refugees.
Speaker 3 [00:12:27] Yeah, sure. So, as I mentioned before, that this issue was picked up by some political leaders, you know, some state officials. They started coming out and then saying that Rohingyas are illegal migrants and they should be identified and they shouldn't be deported. So soon after the central government, they issued a notice saying to all the state governments in India to identify Rohingyas. So this was the time when Rohingya committee in India were terrified because identification means there should be some subsequent activities could be. So they were very much scared of these narratives and all. But the important stuff here to talk about that once the issue. Was started securitizing. Soon after, the state government, as I mentioned that in 2012, they were given long term visas, right? And because of the long term visa, some of them could also have Aadhaar cards, which is like a national identity card, which gives you some basic rights, for example, access to education, health care, etc. The first thing after the securitization process was starting, their long-term visas were being rejected. And soon after, the Aadhaar cards were confiscated, you know. And as I mentioned that central government issued a notice to identify Rohingyas from all the states in India. So the identification, there were cases of detention and some of the cases of deportation also. And in 2019, this Citizenship Amendment Act came into existence. So CA 2019, which is Citizenship amendment act 2019, which gives basically citizenship to illegal migrants of six communities. So these were like Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists. Jain, Parsis, Christians. But in this act, Muslims were excluded. So this was a very exclusionary act and was also criticized by so many actors, not only the national but also internationals. So it was the process, one by one, how this whole issue was securitized and rangers of course were also not included.
Speaker 2 [00:15:30] These narratives shape to a great extent public perception as well as the policy making as you have just explained. Can you also please explain how these narratives have impacted on the public, the Indians that come across with Rohingyas.
Speaker 3 [00:15:52] So there was this, you know, paper came out in 2024, I guess, written by Christina Kironska and me. So the title of this paper is Exploring Public Opinions. That's exactly your question that you asked. So exploring public opinions on Rohingyas residing in India. So this paper was actually outcome of a survey. The survey name was the Sinophon Borderland Indo-Pacific Survey. The main motive of this survey was to investigating the global perception of China. But this survey also included some other questions like, so this was also had some questions about Rohingyas in India. So in the Indian case, there were 1146 respondent were taken out all over India and one of the questions of the survey was asked that how they feel about you know Rohingyas. Do they have warm feelings towards them or colder feelings towards or neutral feeling. So one of outcomes was that they had you know colder feelings towards Rohingyas, even colder than Muslims in India. And when another question was asked about the settlement, do you want Rohingya people to settle in India? So the response, according to this survey, was a neutral response, 50-50. So half the respondents said that, yeah, OK, no problem. They can resettle here. But half of them were like, no, we don't want Roingyas to resettle in India. So this issue was... According to this survey, it was very much polarized, you know, so it gives exactly perfect ground for the securitization. So if the issue in this kind of scenario, if the issue is a little bit more securatized, then you know it can be a successful securidization. So yeah, that's the public opinion, you know, it's pretty much polarized. Even when we talk about the media in India, it's also, it is also polarized because, you know, one outlet would say that, you know, it's a humanitarian issue, you know, we should, when just people are in dire situation, we need to help and all those. But the other other outlet in this would say, that, that they are illegal migrants, they are engaged in illegal activities, they should be deported, you know, so yeah, it is pretty much polarized.
Speaker 2 [00:18:43] Well, I think polarization is one step towards secularization and as you have explained, the Indian community are quite polarized with regard to Rohingyas and Rohingya themselves they carry the burden of being refugees to others as well as being Muslims. So, I'm just wondering within this context, what role do NGOs act to its end. Local committees play in supporting or resisting this polarizing and securitizing narratives.
Speaker 3 [00:19:17] I think civil society organizations in India are playing a vital role when it comes to the Rohingya's human rights protection and all those stuff. I would like to mention one organization which was founded by Rohingyas himself. So, the name of this organization is the Rohingya Human Rights Initiative. Which was founded in 2017. And he is kind of a voice for the Rohingya people in India. So whenever there is a problem, whenever Rohingy community needs a help, they always look towards this organization. And also there are a few national and international organizations working for Rohingyas in India, UNHCR and its partner organizations are also having a very significant role. UNHCr is pretty much dominant when it comes to the when we talk about NGOs and its partner organizations like Exxon Aid, Bosco, Daji, Development and Justice Initiative. This organization works basically for the you know on the cases for example detention, deportation and all these filing the cases. For Rohingyas in the Supreme Court and high courts. And also another organization which is pretty much working on the cases of Rohingyas are the CHRI, which is Commonwealth Human Rights Organization. So yeah, these civil society organizations are actually working and playing a very critical role, advocating for the rights and protection of Roingyas.
Speaker 2 [00:21:13] All right, let's zoom out slightly Monica. How does India's approach to Rohingya compare with other countries in the region like Bangladesh or Malaysia? Are there any similar keys or differences that you would like to share with us today?
Speaker 3 [00:21:28] I think when when we talk about this broader regional and tropical reflections, let's take an example of Bangladesh. You know, Bangladesh, it's one of those countries having, you know, almost a million of Rohingyas in their land, you know. So when we talked about Bangladesh, they had they had a very, you Open policies when it comes to Rohingyas. In the beginning, they had very humanitarian gestures for Rohingya. But what happened that since 2017, I guess, more and more Rohingyas started coming in Bangladesh and also, you know, this country is tackled without any Bangladesh is also not part of the 1951 convention or any refugee convention and they also don't have any domestic law to deal with the refugees. And when you have this significant amount of people in your land without any laws and very specific policies, it creates a situation where after some point you don't know what to do. Because when the issue was there, there was a lot of international support in the beginning, they had the fundings and all. But by the time these fundings were not that much there, and then Bangladesh government started feeling as a burden because they are also suffering with their own problems, with their problems with the employment, all other stuff. So, later they just... They just couldn't think of what to do with this, you know, because there's no laws, there's no policies to deal with this. So Pangladi has also started securitizing the issue, you now, they started also, you know, saying that these people are, you, know, now it's burden for them, numbers are actually very high. And they came up with this idea to relocate Rohingyas to an an isolated island called Basanchar, which was also a very contested issue because the Rohingyas did not want to go to that island. So they protested against it and some NGOs were also not in support of this relocation to these people, to this isolated island. Some, you know, resettlement policies came into, but it wasn't that much successful. But in the case of India, it was from the very beginning it was very much securitized. But in case of Bangladesh, it wasn t. You know, by the time, over the years, this issue started securitating. So yeah, it's a very, very different scenario when we about Bangladesh and India. And I think in Malaysia is also, the issue is, you know, it's securitized because like, you now, they are also not very much welcoming when it comes to the Rohingya refugee crisis.
Speaker 2 [00:25:04] It seems to me that at the beginning of the crisis both Malaysia and Bangladesh were to a great extent welcoming towards Rohingya Muslims because of probably their religious proximity, affiliation, but as the time passes, when the numbers grow bigger and bigger.
Speaker 3 [00:25:25] Be there yet.
Speaker 2 [00:25:26] There is a certain compassion, as you may call it, compassion fatigue, both on the state and the public side. But still, in these two countries, there is this concept of securitization which can be applied to the situation. So, how does your research, especially the concept of sacredization, explain this negative? Approach towards refugees, but only in the Rohingya case. Extrapolate from this research and say that this scenario will repeat itself in other parts of the world. Do you think it is peculiar to this region or you know there's some global dimensions
Speaker 3 [00:26:19] I think so. I think, so, you know, when we are having this crisis and if, you know, because the securitization and if you see the case of Bangladesh, the securitation, I think started after or around 2017, right? And in India, it was also started something, you now, on the same time period. So I think it has actually a big influence when it comes. For example, in one country, they are staying for many, many years. If that country started saying that, you know, these people are, you know, threat or engaged in illegal activities, you know, or in criminal activities, especially the neighboring countries who take that, right, and started, you know, kind of saying the same narratives against these people. So I think, yeah, there is influence, there is affected, you know how it is affecting. And also, for me, like, you know, in my research, what I'm trying to find out that, how this, the first thing that how this process happens, like you know how the how issue, because as I mentioned before that in India, they were given long term visas, like it was, especially, I mean, for short term, but they were having some of Rohingya refugees were long-term visas. And then later their renewal of their long-term visas were canceled. So they could not have it or any new religious coming to India could not apply now because they are not eligible for applying long- term visas. So yeah, how this process happens and how this issue was securitized. And one of the very important points that I wanna talk about in my research that how it affects their day-to-day life. This is actually very important for me. Securitization has actually layered impact on their lives. So how it effects their access to basic rights, how it effect their education, how it affect their employment how it affects their you know in everything that that is for them is very essential but it it it has a impact so yeah that's how and in in the case of India after this the process of securitization started and you know their their long-term visas were rejected their And her card was rejected. Without any identity card, you know, they can't access for education. There is no access for employment. They are rangers in India actually working on the informal sector. Like you know there's like very small jobs like rat pickings and you know daily wage employment and all those stuff. The other problem that they are suffering to enroll their kids in the schools. Because they don't have any identity card, they only have UNHCR refugee card, which is not sufficient for them. So they have to go to NGOs to ask for help. So with the help of the NGO, they can get their kids into the schools. But they have go through every year, because every year there will be new admissions. And every year they need these people to help them. And it's actually on a very case-to-case basis. So these kind of problems that they are suffering with this. So yeah, that's the main focus of my research.
Speaker 2 [00:30:24] Well, I mean, following on what you have said about the precarious gesture of Syrian refugees, do you think there is a hope, I believe, especially based on your research and findings of what are the possible directions for ranger in Lithuania? Is there a hope?
Speaker 3 [00:30:41] I think when I can see this case in India, the first thing I think I would like to mention that there should be at least a domestic policy that deals with the refugees because India still works on the 1942 Foreigners Act. According to this act, if anyone enters in India without any document, legal document, they are illegal. So there is no categorization or different scenario for refugees. So I think it's very, because everything started with the framing that, it's not that, I mean, India has different communities, like different refugee groups, like Tibetan refugees, the Sri Lankan refugees. Afghan, Afghani refugees, Rohingya refugees, and many more, you know, but some of some group of people were, you now, recognized, at least recognized by the state, like Tibetan refugees were supported by the State, Sri Lankan refugees to some extent supported by the State. But, when it comes to Afghan refugees and Rohingya refugees. They were not supported by the state, you know, so I think there should be a, you know, similar treatment when it comes to the refugees. It should not be on a preferential basis, you know, which group of people being liked by the State, which one is not, you know. So I think it's very important to have a legal framework and also When it comes to refugees, I think it's also very important to advocate for the sifting narratives. It should not be decided by this national security and all those stuff. So there is a very important thing to advocate for this sifting narratives around refugees. And also, I think regional cooperation is very important because the Rohingya crisis in South Asia, if you talk about, so if these countries have some regional cooperation, that would of course gonna help for Rohingyas. And I think they do have this regional cooperation which is called SARS, like Stoutation Association for Regional Cooperation. They don't much focus on the refugee crisis. They don't focus much on the Rohingya case. So I think if they will focus a little bit more about these kind of issues, that would help them to some extent. Yeah, and I think also international engagement is also very important when it comes to, because when we talk about global refugee crisis, So, um... Rohingyas are, in this case, showing how vulnerable our protection system is, our care system is when we talk about the Rohingya crisis. So I think international engagement is also very important in the South Asian case here.
Speaker 2 [00:34:16] Well, thank you, Monika. I think these are very crucial points that you have raised. And now, the equal treatment of Rohingya refugees in India, the regional cooperation among the countries at stake, and international engagement. I think this is what we need in all areas where there is a crisis related to, you know, immigrants or refugees. And I would like to finalize with a question regarding the broader implications of your study. What implications does your research have for the field of migration studies and how we conceptualized forced displacement and statelessness? What sort of general, broader implications can you talk about regarding your research?
Speaker 3 [00:35:04] I think when we talk about this broader regional reflections, I think a few things are very important to talk about. The first thing is the regional geopolitics. The second is, of course, this global refugee crisis and then the third security discourse. So, I think when we talk about the case of Rohingya refugee crisis in South Asia This regional geopolitics actually plays a very crucial role because South Asia, if you see, it's a home to the diverse geopolitical tensions and historical conflicts that plays a very significant role that how countries approach refugees. When it comes to the refugee protection, I think states' sovereignty and security concerns are actually central to the national policies, and framing, of course, always reinforce the national discourses that prioritize sovereignty and human rights. And also a few things are, I thing, in a broader way, it's very important to understand especially in South Asian case. That how nationalism plays a very big role. A few terms like religion plays a crucial role. Ethnic identity also, when it comes to protection, refugee rights, humanitarian concerns. Xenophobia also plays a important role. Identity politics also plays an important role, so these things are actually intertwined with each other when we... When we talk about refugee protection. So all these factors plays a very crucial role for regional geopolitics in it. It's very complicated, it's not that simple. And also I think we have to also mention about this international system of protection, how the treatment of Rohingyas also kind of reflects, you know, broader failure in the global refugee protection. There is a gap in international law and the state behavior because, you know, as India and Bangladesh, they are not part of 1951 Refugee Convention. So, state is holding the power, you now, whether to accept these group of people, whether to, you know, give them protection whether to give them you know, rights, basic human rights or no. So yeah, of course, there is a gap in international law. There's a gap between international law and state behavior. And also, it's very much state-driven in the South Asian case. UNHCR, as I mentioned before, has a very limited influence in this region. So, um Yeah, so these things are, I think, we have to work on if we want to see this case in a broader way. So it's very important to bring this issue in the limelight.
Speaker 2 [00:38:36] Well, thank you very much. Thank you for sharing your powerful and timely insights. I think your work not only unpacks state-level securitization, but also gives voice to the lived experiences of Rohingya refugees across India. And to our listeners, this podcast is part of the Migration Refugees and the SIDU Research Group here at the Global Development Institute of Reuters University. And thanks again for listening, and until next time.
Speaker 3 [00:39:04] Thank you so much.