The causal link between migration and social conflict is well-established. Most recently, riots erupted across France after the police shot an adolescent of Algerian descent. In India, in-migration from Myanmar has contributed to the ongoing clashes in Manipur. This underlines the need for a clear-cut and enforceable policy on immigration, while implementing the apex court-mandated National Register for Citizens (NRC).
While Assam is the most obvious example, several states in the Northeast have witnessed a significant influx from across the border. The Mizoram government has welcomed Chin and Kuki-Chin refugees from Myanmar and Bangladesh, as have the Kukis of Manipur. The Centre’s directive against the influx was flouted on the grounds that the state government was acting in a “humanitarian” spirit.
It is pertinent to point out that this spirit was not in evidence vis-a-vis the Buddhist Chakmas, many of whom came from Bangladesh in the 1960s, or the Reangs, who fled Mizoram following ethnic clashes in the 1990s. After many failed attempts at repatriation, the Reangs are being resettled in Tripura over the objections of the local population. (Migrations can stoke conflict even within national borders, Uttarakhand being a recent case in point.)
India is both the world’s largest source of emigrants, and a destination for South Asian migrants. Estimates of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh are as high as 20 million, which is larger than the entire Indian diaspora. By contrast, the number of undocumented immigrants in the US in 2017 was estimated (by Pew Research) at 10.5 million, about a quarter of the total immigrant population.
That said, estimates of illegal immigrants in India vary widely. Many are believed to have enrolled themselves as voters and obtained Adhaar cards, thereby acquiring de facto citizenship and serving as vote banks for their benefactors. This has led to confusion as to what legally constitutes proof of citizenship. Aadhaar, of course, is merely proof of residence. Without an NRC, it is impossible to arrive at precise figures of just how many outsiders reside in India.
Other than the Bangladeshis, the Chins and Rohingyas of Myanmar and the Afghans constitute groups of significant size. The Afghans are in India under a programme operated by the United National High Commission for Refugees, whereas the Rohingyas live in fear of deportation. All these groups claim, with some justification, to be fleeing persecution in their home country. However, India has pointed out that it does not have a law on refugees and only Tibetan and Sri Lankan migrants enjoy legal status. Nor does it make a distinction between those who come in search of economic opportunities (illegal immigrants) and those seeking asylum (refugees).
While a more liberal approach to hosting immigrants and particularly refugees may appear desirable, policy-makers have to take several factors into account. Consider the current crisis of integration in Europe. In France, for example, the low-income banlieus (suburbs) of Paris are hotspots of simmering discontent. Alleged racial discrimination and marginalisation of immigrant communities have led to sporadic outbursts of violence, notably in 2005. Low quality housing, income disparities and racial profiling are manifestly unfair to successive generations of immigrants.
The takeaway is that opening the doors to immigration requires the state to ensure not just equality before law, but equality in terms of income opportunity, and assimilation with the national identity and values of the host country. It must also take into account national security concerns and possible pushback from the native population. When all the above are not factored in, the problem of integrating migrants and refugees acquires critical proportions.
Western economists by and large favour migrants, legal or illegal, on the premise that they contribute more to the economy than they take away. This is admittedly not the case in developing economies, where wages are low and unemployment high. What’s more, even in developed economies, illegal immigration does depress wages. In the US, there is evidence that undocumented workers lower the wages of similarly skilled native counterparts.
So, politicians have to take a nuanced view. It is a fact that certain migrant groups tend to integrate more easily, and with less pushback, than others. Where cultural assimilation becomes difficult, the flag of multiculturalism is raised. Those who advise a cautious approach to immigrationare condemned as “nativist” and “xenophobic”, which is unhelpful in formulating policy.
Humans have been on the move ever since the first migration out of Africa. As of now, 3.5% of the global population — some 300 million people — live outside their country of birth. Yet, immigration serves as an emotional trigger for native populations worldwide. States respond with tough immigration policies or a strong push towards assimilation, or both. India has had a somewhat ad hoc approach so far, given ethnic ties with cross-border populations. It’s time to formulate — and implement — an unambiguous policy.
Bhavdeep Kang is a senior journalist with 35 years of experience in working with major newspapers and magazines. She is now an independent writer and author
