India accused of illegal deportations targeting Muslims
India has deported without trial to Bangladesh hundreds of people, officials from both sides said, drawing condemnation from activists and lawyers who call the recent expulsions illegal and based on ethnic profiling.
New Delhi says the people deported are undocumented migrants.
The Hindu nationalist government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has long taken a hardline stance on immigration -- particularly those from neighboring Muslim-majority Bangladesh -- with top officials referring to them as 'termites' and 'infiltrators.'
It has also sparked fear among India's estimated 200 million Muslims, especially among speakers of Bengali, a widely spoken language in both eastern India and Bangladesh.
'Muslims, particularly from the eastern part of the country, are terrified,' said veteran Indian rights activist Harsh Mander.
'You have thrown millions into this existential fear.'
Bangladesh, largely encircled by land by India, has seen relations with New Delhi turn icy since a mass uprising in 2024 toppled Dhaka's government, a former friend of India.
But India also ramped up operations against migrants after a wider security crackdown in the wake of an attack in the west -- the April 22 killing of 26 people, mainly Hindu tourists, in Indian-administered Kashmir.
New Delhi blamed that attack on Pakistan, claims Islamabad rejected, with arguments culminating in a four-day conflict that left more than 70 dead.
Indian authorities launched an unprecedented countrywide security drive that has seen many thousands detained -- and many of them eventually pushed across the border to Bangladesh at gunpoint.
'Do not dare'
Rahima Begum, from India's eastern Assam state, said police detained her for several days in late May before taking her to the Bangladesh frontier.
She said she and her family had spent their life in India.
'I have lived all my life here -- my parents, my grandparents, they are all from here,' she said. 'I don't know why they would do this to me.'
Indian police took Begum, along with five other people, all Muslims, and forced them into swampland in the dark.
'They showed us a village in the distance and told us to crawl there,' she told AFP.
'They said: 'Do not dare to stand and walk, or we will shoot you.''
Bangladeshi locals who found the group then handed them to border police who 'thrashed' them and ordered they return to India, Begum said.
'As we approached the border, there was firing from the other side,' said the 50-year-old.
'We thought: 'This is the end. We are all going to die.''
She survived, and, a week after she was first picked up, she was dropped back home in Assam with a warning to keep quiet.
'Ideological hate campaign'
Rights activists and lawyers criticized India's drive as 'lawless.'
'You cannot deport people unless there is a country to accept them,' said New Delhi-based civil rights lawyer Sanjay Hegde.
Indian law does not allow for people to be deported without due process, he added.
Bangladesh has said India has pushed more than 1,600 people across its border since May.
Indian media suggests the number could be as high as 2,500.
The Bangladesh Border Guards said it has sent back 100 of those pushed across -- because they were Indian citizens.
India has been accused of forcibly deporting Muslim Rohingya refugees from Myanmar, with navy ships dropping them off the coast of the war-torn nation.
Many of those targeted in the campaign are low-wage laborers in states governed by Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), according to rights activists.
Indian authorities did not respond to questions about the number of people detained and deported.
But Assam state's chief minister has said that more than 300 people have been deported to Bangladesh.
Separately, Gujarat's police chief said more than 6,500 people have been rounded up in the western state, home to both Modi and interior minister Amit Shah.
Many of those were reported to be Bengali-speaking Indians and later released.
'People of Muslim identity who happen to be Bengali speaking are being targeted as part of an ideological hate campaign,' said Mander, the activist.
Nazimuddin Mondal, a 35-year-old mason, said he was picked up by police in the financial hub of Mumbai, flown on a military aircraft to the border state of Tripura and pushed into Bangladesh.
He managed to cross back, and is now back in India's West Bengal state, where he said he was born.
'The Indian security forces beat us with batons when we insisted we were Indians,' said Mondal, adding he is now scared to even go out to seek work.
'I showed them my government-issued ID, but they just would not listen.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
Arbitration court says has jurisdiction in Pakistan's Indus waters case against India
ISLAMABAD: The Permanent Court of Arbitration on Friday ruled that India's decision of holding the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance did not deprive the court of its competence to adjudicate Pakistan's complaints against its neighbor. In its supplemental award on the proceedings instituted by Pakistan against India, the court said it had previously found that once a proceeding before a court of arbitration is properly initiated, as in the present case, 'there must be a strong presumption against the incidental loss of jurisdiction over the matters placed before it by subsequent acts, such as the appointment of a neutral expert.' India announced it was putting the 1960 World Bank-mediated treaty, which ensures water for 80 percent of Pakistani farms, in abeyance a day after an attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that New Delhi blamed on Pakistan, an allegation Islamabad denies. Pakistan has previously said the treaty has no provision for one side to unilaterally pull back and that any blocking of river water flowing to Pakistan will be considered 'an act of war.' In light of the developments, the PCA issued a procedural order on May 16 and requested the parties to provide written submissions on the effect, if any, of these recent developments before the court. Pakistan filed written submissions and no submissions were filed by India, but the court said it had considered New Delhi's position. 'The current phase of the proceedings before the Court concerns the overall interpretation and application of the Treaty's provisions on hydro-electric project design and operation, as well as the legal effect of past decisions of dispute resolution bodies under the Treaty,' it said. 'Accordingly, the text of the Treaty, read in light of its object and purpose, does not to allow either Party, acting unilaterally, to hold in abeyance or suspend an ongoing dispute settlement process.' The IWT grants Pakistan rights to the Indus basin's western rivers — Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab — for irrigation, drinking, and non-consumptive uses like hydropower, while India controls the eastern rivers — Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej — for unrestricted use but must not significantly alter their flow. India can use the western rivers for limited purposes such as power generation and irrigation, without storing or diverting large volumes, according to the agreement. On July 6, 2023, the PCA had issued its award on competence after considering India's objections. In a unanimous decision, the court had ruled that it was competent to consider and determine the disputes set forth in Pakistan's request for arbitration in the case. Pakistan had initiated the present arbitral proceedings before the court on August 19, 2016. The South Asian neighbors have been arguing over hydroelectric projects on the shared Indus river and its tributaries for decades, with Pakistan complaining that India's planned hydropower dams will cut flows on the river which feeds 80 percent of its irrigated agriculture. The PCA noted on Friday that the principal issue concerned the implications, if any, that India's decision to hold the treaty in 'abeyance' may have on the competence of the court. 'Paragraph 16 of Annexure G to the Treaty provides that '[s]ubject to the provisions of this Treaty and except as the Parties may otherwise agree, the Court shall decide all questions relating to its competence',' the PCA said. 'Accordingly, the Court found that it was for the Court — and the Court alone — to answer the question before it.' New Delhi's halting of the water agreement was one of a series of tit-for-tat diplomatic measures taken by both countries in the immediate aftermath of the April 22 attack in Kashmir, which resulted in a four-day military conflict between the neighbors in May. The Pakistani government welcomed the supplemental award by the PCA in the IWT case. 'Pakistan welcomes the Supplemental Award by the Court of Arbitration in the Indus Waters matter that has been handed down today and made public on the website of the Permanent Court of Arbitration,' it said in an X post on Friday. 'Pakistan notes that the Court has affirmed its Competence in the light of recent developments and that unilateral action by India cannot deprive either the Court or the Neutral Expert... of their competence to adjudicate the issues before them.' Islamabad said the priority at this point was for India and Pakistan to find a way back to a meaningful dialogue, including on the application of the Indus Waters Treaty. Pakistan is 'ready to engage in a meaningful dialogue with India on all outstanding issues, including Jammu and Kashmir, water, trade and terrorism,' it said, quoting Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif's comments earlier this week.
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
No party can unilaterally suspend India-Pakistan Indus Waters Treaty, Court of Arbitration says
ISLAMABAD: The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) on Friday issued a supplemental award in the Indus waters arbitration case and said no party could unilaterally suspend the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) between Pakistan and India. India announced it was putting the 1960 World Bank-mediated treaty, which ensures water for 80 percent of Pakistani farms, in abeyance a day after an attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that New Delhi blamed on Pakistan, an allegation Islamabad denies. Pakistan has previously said the treaty has no provision for one side to unilaterally pull back and that any blocking of river water flowing to Pakistan will be considered 'an act of war.' In light of the developments, the PCA issued a procedural order on May 16, 2025 and requested the parties to provide written submissions on the effect, if any, of these recent developments on matters before the court, including their respective competence. Pakistan filed written submissions and no submissions were filed by India, but the court said it had considered New Delhi's position. 'The Court first considered the terms of the Treaty, which do not provide for the unilateral 'abeyance' or 'suspension' of the Treaty; rather, according to its terms, the Treaty continues in force until terminated with the mutual consent of India and Pakistan,' the PCA said on Friday. 'The Court found that the terms of the Treaty, read in light of the Treaty's object and purpose, do not allow either Party, acting unilaterally, to hold in abeyance or suspend an ongoing dispute settlement process, given that to do so would fundamentally undermine 'the value and efficacy of the Treaty's compulsory third-party dispute settlement process'.' The IWT grants Pakistan rights to the Indus basin's western rivers — Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab — for irrigation, drinking, and non-consumptive uses like hydropower, while India controls the eastern rivers — Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej — for unrestricted use but must not significantly alter their flow. India can use the western rivers for limited purposes such as power generation and irrigation, without storing or diverting large volumes, according to the agreement. On July 6, 2023, the PCA had issued its award on competence after considering India's objections. In a unanimous decision, the court had ruled that it was competent to consider and determine the disputes set forth in Pakistan's request for arbitration in the case. Pakistan had initiated the present arbitral proceedings before the court on August 19, 2016. The South Asian neighbors have been arguing over hydroelectric projects on the shared Indus River and its tributaries for decades, with Pakistan complaining that India's planned hydropower dams will cut flows on the river which feeds 80 percent of its irrigated agriculture. The PCA noted on Friday that the principal issue concerned the implications, if any, that India's decision to hold the treaty in 'abeyance' may have on the competence of the court. 'Paragraph 16 of Annexure G to the Treaty provides that '[s]ubject to the provisions of this Treaty and except as the Parties may otherwise agree, the Court shall decide all questions relating to its competence',' the PCA said. 'Accordingly, the Court found that it was for the Court— and the Court alone — to answer the question before it.' New Delhi's halting the water agreement was one of a series of tit-for-tat diplomatic measures taken by both countries in the immediate aftermath of the April 22 attack in Kashmir, which resulted in a four-day military conflict between the neighbors in May. The Pakistani government welcomed the supplemental award by the PCA in the IWT case. 'Pakistan welcomes the Supplemental Award by the Court of Arbitration in the Indus Waters matter that has been handed down today and made public on the website of the Permanent Court of Arbitration,' it said in an X post on Friday. 'Pakistan notes that the Court has affirmed its Competence in the light of recent developments and that unilateral action by India cannot deprive either the Court or the Neutral Expert... of their competence to adjudicate the issues before them.' Islamabad said the priority at this point was for India and Pakistan to find a way back to a meaningful dialogue, including on the application of the Indus Waters Treaty. Pakistan is 'ready to engage in a meaningful dialogue with India on all outstanding issues, including Jammu and Kashmir, water, trade and terrorism,' it said, quoting Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif's comments earlier this week.
Al Arabiya
14 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
DHS Secretary Praises Florida's 'Alligator Alcatraz' Plan as Agency Expands Immigration Detention
The Homeland Security secretary is praising Florida for an idea dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz,' which would house immigration detainees in a facility being built in a Florida swamp. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the department has been looking to expand immigration detention capacity and reviewing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) contracts with various vendors for detention beds. 'The ones with some of the vendors that we had I felt were way too expensive and that those vendors were not giving us fair prices, and so I went directly to states to ask them if they could do a better job providing this service,' she said in an interview with The Associated Press as her Latin America trip ended late Thursday. She said the department has been reaching out to states or companies who aren't regular ICE contractors to see whether they're able to provide the needed detention space at a better price. 'We really are looking for people that want to help drive down the cost but still provide a very high level of detention facility,' she said. Noem said Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier brought this particular idea to the department. 'They were willing to build it and do it much quicker than what some of the other vendors were. And it was a real solution that we'll be able to utilize if we need to,' she said. Noem said they evaluated the contract and it made sense. As the Trump administration has dramatically ramped up immigration enforcement, the number of people in ICE detention has swelled. ICE detention facilities held more than 56,000 immigrants in June–the most since 2019. Florida officials have dubbed the facility they're building in the remote and ecologically sensitive wetland about 45 miles (72 kilometers) west of downtown Miami as 'Alligator Alcatraz.' The facility, located at an isolated Everglades airfield surrounded by mosquito-, python-, and alligator-filled swamplands, is just days away from being operational. The detention facility is Florida's latest effort to assist in President Trump's mass deportation agenda. Noem said some of the ICE detention contracts put in place under her predecessor, Alejandro Mayorkas, were for 10–15 years. 'That's insane to me. If we do our job correctly, we shouldn't be doing this 15 years from now,' she said. The detention contracts were among a range of subjects Noem spoke about with the Associated Press during an interview in Guatemala City at the end of her four-country tour through Central America. Noem made stops in Panama, Costa Rica, Honduras, and Guatemala. Here are some of the other highlights of the conversation: Signing security agreements. Noem said that President Trump encouraged her to visit Central American countries that have historically been points of origin for many migrants to the US and get more security agreements–or to finalize ones where discussions had already started–and to get them across the finish line. She praised Honduras for being much more of a partner than in the past and said that they had signed a safe third country agreement with Honduras, calling it a big win from this trip. She said Guatemala on Thursday also agreed to be a safe third country. The agreements expand the Trump administration's efforts to provide the US government flexibility in returning migrants not only to their own countries but also to third countries as it attempts to ramp up deportations. 'We've never believed that the United States should be the only option, that the guarantee for a refugee is that they go somewhere to be safe and to be protected from whatever threat they face in their country,' she said. 'It doesn't necessarily have to be the United States.' Noem said those agreements were something the administration has been working on for months, 'but they weren't happening until we came here. We've been putting a lot of pressure on them to finalize those agreements,' she said. 'And both of those countries did, which is great.' Both governments denied having signed safe third-country agreements when asked following Noem's comments. Noem had said Thursday that, politically, this is a difficult agreement for their governments to do. Both countries have limited resources and many needs, making support for asylum-seekers from other countries a tougher sell domestically. There are also the optics of two left-of-center governments appearing to help the Trump administration limit access to US asylum. Noem also signed an agreement with Guatemala on Thursday that establishes a Joint Security Program under which US Customs and Border Protection officers would work with the Guatemalan government to improve border security in Guatemala. Under the agreement, CBP officers will be stationed at the country's international airport–and possibly other airports in the future–to assist the Guatemalan government in identifying travelers who might be involved in terrorism or other crimes or pose a threat to Guatemala by smuggling contraband or currency in or out of the country. America's strongest partners. Noem said both Costa Rica and Guatemala want to partner with the US. 'Guatemala and Costa Rica, I feel like, are competing for this a little bit. They both want to be America's strongest partners,' she said. Costa Rica specifically wants US help in its efforts to screen every person or package coming into the country, she said. Noem said Costa Rican President Rodrigo Chaves isn't asking the US to pay for the technology or equipment but instead wants help negotiating with private companies to get Costa Rica what it needs. The partnership is different in Guatemala, though. There, Noem said, the government wants American help in going after drug cartels. Speaking of her talks with Guatemalan President Bernardo Arévalo, she said he had specific requests during their meeting Thursday designed to help Guatemala target cartels. 'He wants us to help support him in going after them because they're seeing a big increase in drug usage here in this country,' she said. She said Panama, which is home to the economically crucial Panama Canal, has been a priority of this administration. The country is also a key part of the migration route from South America to the US. In recent years, hundreds of thousands of migrants have traversed the treacherous Darien Gap connecting Panama and Colombia. Although that traffic started to fall last year under the Biden administration and dwindled to nothing after Trump took office, Noem said during her time in Panama they discussed how to sustain that drop. But she was critical of Panama when it came to information-sharing: 'That country has worked with us, but it hasn't been our greatest partner, I would say, as far as sharing information.'
