Beyond Ad Hocism: Towards Rights based Refugee protection in India

India’s absence of a national refugee law entrenches discriminatory and securitised governance of displaced populations. Despite hosting over 200,000 refugees from Tibet, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, and Myanmar, India relies on ad hoc policies under immigration statutes like the Foreigners Act (1946), creating hierarchies of protection. This paper critiques India’s “strategic ambiguity” through comparative case studies of three groups: state-supported Sri Lankan Tamils (Category I), UNHCR-recognised Afghans (Category II), and criminalised Rohingya Muslims (Category III). It reveals how geopolitical interests—not vulnerability—determine rights access, with Muslim refugees systematically excluded. Legal limbo denies refugees socio-economic entitlements: Rohingya in Delhi/Jammu lack documentation for schools, healthcare, and formal work, violating constitutional guarantees. Concurrently, securitisation frames refugees as security threats, justifying deportations (e.g., MHA’s 2017 Rohingya policy) and religious exclusion under the Citizenship Amendment Act (2019). The analysis employs securitisation theory (Buzan et al.) and “crimmigration” (Stumpf) to argue that India’s policy asymmetry enables state-sanctioned discrimination. Recommendations include enacting a rights-based refugee law enshrining non-refoulement, regional cooperation via SAARC, and learning from Mizoram’s local integration of Chin refugees. Without structural reform, India’s selective humanitarianism will continue violating international norms and marginalizing the most vulnerable.