Regional Cooperation And The Protection Of Refugees - A South Asian Perspective

Author: LawSphereX

Category: International Law

Published: 2026-08-23T20:52:34.921959+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:09:50.601+00:00

REGIONAL COOPERATION AND THE PROTECTION OF

REFUGEES: A SOUTH ASIAN PERSPECTIVE

Asif Iqbal, Assistant Professor, School of Legal Studies, BBD University, Lucknow

ABSTRACT

South Asia hosts one of the world’s densest concentrations of displaced people—more than three million—yet the region remains outside the core bargains of international refugee law. The article explores the historical drivers of displacement throughout South Asia, including colonial divisions and interstate wars, as well as modern crises like the Rohingya migration. It argues that managing the "refugee archipelago" requires more than just stateby-state methods. With Afghanistan as the only regional signatory to the

1951 Refugee Convention, most South Asian states rely on discretionary

executive measures that change according to internal politics, economic capability, and security concerns. Inequitable recognition procedures, restricted rights for non-citizens, and increasing financial and social strains on host communities are all highlighted in case studies of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, who collectively provide asylum to around 90% of the region's refugees. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is evaluated in the article as a possible venue for a legally mandated regional framework. Reviewing the 2004 South Asia Declaration on Refugees, it highlights doctrinal innovations that could be tailored to South Asian realities, such as the expanded definition of refugees, responsibility-sharing principles, and the lack of security-based refoulement exceptions, by drawing comparisons to Africa's 1969 OAU Convention.

The research concludes that the best way to balance humanitarian needs with state sovereignty concerns is through a customized regional compact based on shared responsibilities and harmonized legal standards. This research paper provides practical strategies to turn South Asia's disjointed asylum system into a cohesive, rights-based governance framework by placing refugee protection within SAARC's larger development and security agenda. Keywords: Regional Cooperation, Refugee Protection, South Asia, Forced Migration, International Human Rights

1. Introduction:

South Asia today shelters more than three million people who have fled persecution or conflict, most of them lodged in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India (United Nations 2017). Their longstanding influence today influences all levels of government, from human rights and community welfare to macroeconomics and border control. Large refugee arrivals are mostly viewed through the prism of territorial risk and state instability in classical security thinking (Hussain 2008), whereas human security emphasizes individual safety and host community resilience (Solomon 2008).

In reality, the two goals are closely related: dramatic increases in the price of food and housing, political discourse portraying refugees as dangers to national security or culture, and intermittent violence between residents and visitors (Walpuski 1999; Ahmed 2018) demonstrate how humanitarian concerns swiftly permeate the subcontinent's national security domain. [1] The area has seen mass relocation before. Four decades of conflict in Afghanistan have resulted in the second-largest refugee population in the world; the ongoing Rohingya crisis has forced over a million people into Bangladesh; the 1947 partition uprooted over ten million people along hurriedly drawn religious boundaries; and the 1971 India-Pakistan war caused another wave of ten million East Pakistanis to seek refuge in India.

These repeated shocks have produced what may be referred to as a "refugee archipelago," with a population, economic burden, and diplomatic ramifications that transcend state boundaries. [2] The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), which was founded in 1985 with the goal of enhancing the welfare of South Asian peoples, provides a clear but underutilized forum for group action in light of this. Although intra-regional conflicts have limited SAARC's accomplishments to "soft" development issues, the organization has made little strides in addressing human-security challenges including poverty and trafficking. Therefore, the question posed in this study is whether SAARC can develop into a reliable system for handling forced migration.

It first examines the historical trends of South Asian refugee migration, then assesses SAARC's institutional structure and political limitations, and lastly looks at workable legal, financial, and operational avenues for integrating a region-wide protection regime into the Association's current development framework. [3]

2. Historical and Contemporary Refugee Situations in South Asia

2.1. India's 1947 Partition and Refugee Movements

One of the biggest and bloodiest mass migrations in history was brought on by the catastrophic event known as the Partition of India, which split British India into the separate countries of India and Pakistan. Nearly 7 million Hindus and Sikhs migrated to India [4], and 7.2 million Muslims migrated to Pakistan [5], resulting in a displacement of nearly 14 million people. Horrible community violence, including extensive rioting, burning, looting, and the deaths of about a million people, accompanied this enormous population swap. Women were especially severely affected, experiencing unprecedented levels of sexual assault, kidnapping, and other gendered horrors.

2.2 Bangladesh Liberation War and Mass Displacement, 1971

When the Pakistani army's genocide in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) sparked an unparalleled flood of refugees into India, the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War resulted in a severe humanitarian crisis. In an attempt to escape the rampant bloodshed, almost 10 million people migrated to India. India responded by establishing camps for refugees in places like Tripura, Assam, and West Bengal. Estimated at ₹560 crore (at the time, comparable to US billion), the magnitude of the displacement placed a significant financial strain on the nation. In the end, India's military action in December 1971 was essential to Bangladesh's freedom and the crisis' resolution. [6]

2.3. Tibetan Refugees in India

The first wave of over 80,000 Tibetan exiles arrived in India when the Dalai Lama fled Tibet after the failed 1959 rebellion against Chinese control. The number of Tibetan refugees in India has increased to about 100,000 throughout the years. These refugees have settled in a number of places, most notably portions of Arunachal Pradesh, Bylakuppe, Karnataka, and Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh. In addition to offering refuge, India has allowed the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA), a government-in-exile that is based in Dharamshala and reflects the political goals of the Tibetan diaspora, to be established. [7]

2.4 Sri Lankan Tamil Refugees in India

Beginning in 1983, the protracted civil conflict between Tamil separatists, namely the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), and the government of Sri Lanka, which is

dominated by Sinhalese, led to many waves of refugees fleeing to India. Approximately 58,000 of the 300,000 Tamil refugees who fled to India during the conflict are currently living in camps spread throughout Tamil Nadu. Despite being formally registered, these people have not been given formal refuge or Indian citizenship. The 1991 killing of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi by LTTE agents further complicated India's response to the problem and had a big impact on its policies and attitudes toward the Tamil refugee community. [8]

2.5. Afghan Refugees in Pakistan

One of the biggest and longest-lasting refugee groups in the world has been in Pakistan since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Nearly 4 million Afghan refugees sought safety in Pakistan at its height in the 1980s. Significant numbers still exist even if many have returned over time now, over 1.3 million are registered with the UNHCR, while an estimated 700,000 are still unregistered. The majority of Afghan refugees live in the regions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan, where they still struggle with issues including socioeconomic integration, legal status, and service accessibility. [9]

2.6. Rohingya Crisis and Bangladesh’s Role

After decades of systematic persecution and displacement, the Rohingya, a stateless Muslim minority from Myanmar, were pushed into Bangladesh in 2017 because of a violent military campaign. The majority of the 960,000 Rohingya living in refugee camps by 2023 were based in Cox's Bazar, which is now the biggest refugee settlement in the world. While still housing this sizable displaced population, Bangladesh has consistently looked to other countries for support and long-term solutions, such as voluntary repatriation in accordance with international law. Nonetheless, the nation is under a lot of political and economic strain as a result of the crisis. [10]

2.7. Nepal, Bhutan, and Lesser-Known Refugee Issues

More than 100,000 ethnic Nepali Lhotshampas were driven out of Bhutan in the 1990s and relocated to seven camps for refugees in eastern Nepal. Through international resettlement programs, about 90,000 of these Bhutanese refugees have been relocated to third countries, mostly the United States, throughout the years. Alongside this sizable refugee community, Nepal is also home to smaller populations of urban refugees, such as Afghans, Somalis, and

Pakistanis, who reside in metropolitan areas, especially Kathmandu, under UNHCR protection. [11]

2.8 Summary Table: Major Refugee Movements in South Asia

Event Country Involved Estimated Refugees Time Period Partition of India India, Pakistan

14 million

1947–1948 (1947) Bangladesh Liberation War India, Bangladesh

10 million

(1971) Tibetan Refugees in India, Tibet 100,000+ 1959–Present India Sri Lankan Tamil India, Sri Lanka 300,000 1983–2009 Refugees

Major Refugee Movement in South Asia Major Refugee Movement in South Asia Number of Refugees (in millions) 0.1 0.1 0.3

14 million

10 million

100,000+ 300,000

4 million (peak)

960,000 100,000 -2 Partition of India (1947) Bangladesh Liberation War Tibetan Refugees in India (1959– Sri Lankan Tamil Refugees Afghan Refugees in Pakistan (1979– Rohingya Crisis Bhutanese Refugees in Nepal (1990s– -4 in Bangladesh (2017–present) in India (1983– (1971) present) 2009) present) present) Sources: The data on major refugee movements in South Asia are drawn from reliable academic and institutional sources. Ian Talbot, Gurharpal Singh, and Vazira Zamindar base partition figures on works, along with records from India’s Ministry of Home Affairs. Refugee data during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War are sourced from Srinath Raghavan’s research and Ministry of External Affairs reports. Tibetan refugee information is from the Central Tibetan Administration (https://tibet. net) and Fiona McConnell’s work.

Sri Lankan Tamil refugee statistics are from the Government of Tamil Nadu, the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, and UNHCR India (https://www. unhcr. org/in). Afghan refugee data are from UNHCR Pakistan (https://www. unhcr. org/pk), Alessandro Monsutti, and Pakistan's Commissionerate for Afghan Refugees. Rohingya crisis figures are based on UNHCR Bangladesh (https://data. unhcr. org), Amnesty International, and

IOM

reports (https://www.iom.int). Bhutanese refugee data in Nepal come from Human Rights Watch, UNHCR Nepal (https://www.unhcr.org/np), and IOM Bhutanese Resettlement Statistics.

3. Legal and Institutional Frameworks

I. International Instruments

The only South Asian state to have ratified both the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol is Afghanistan, which is the only treaty party in the area (treaties. un. org). Although they are not parties, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka all handle refugees domestically: The Indian Supreme Court interpreted the concept of non-refoulement into Article 21 of the Foreigners Act 1946 [12], which is based on constitutional due process guarantees (en. wikipedia. org; byjus. com; lawbhoomi. com); Although it lacks a formal asylum legislation, Pakistan functions under a 1993 UNHCR cooperation agreement and an Afghan "Proof-of-Registration" system (time. com; jurist. org); Bangladesh is home to almost 1 million Rohingya based on administrative instructions rather than a statute (data. unhcr. org; observerbd.

com); Sri Lanka uses the Immigrants and Emigrants Act 1949, while UNHCR determines refugee status (reporting. unhcr. org). Nepal manages refugees through Cabinet decisions, the Immigration Act 1992, and a 1992 Memorandum of Understanding with UNHCR for the Bhutanese caseload. The customary international law principle of nonrefoulement, which is now generally recognized as jus cogens and supported by human-rights treaties they have signed, such as the ICCPR, CAT, and CRC, binds all five nations notwithstanding their non-party status (legalserviceindia. com).

II. National Laws & Policies

There are no specific asylum laws in South Asia, with the exception of Afghanistan, and national laws and policies pertaining to refugees are mostly based on general immigration or foreigner-related legislation. The Foreigners Act of 1946, the Passport Act of 1920 [13], and the Citizenship Act of 1955 comprise India's legislative framework, although minimal protection is provided by court interpretations of Article 21 of the Constitution. India has a two-pronged approach: the government deals with refugees from neighboring states, while the UNHCR registers refugees from non-neighboring nations. No national refugee legislation has been approved despite a number of private-member draft proposals (byjus. com, lawbhoomi. com). The Foreigners Act of 1946 and a 1993 UNHCR Cooperation Agreement [14] also govern Pakistan's operations.

Although its 2023 "Illegal Foreigners Repatriation Plan" targets

undocumented migrants, it oversees the Afghan Proof-of-Registration (PoR) card system, which serves around 1. 35 million Afghans (jurist. org). The Foreigners Act of 1946, the 2014 National Strategy for Myanmar Refugees [15], and the Refugee Relief and Repatriation Commissioner's (RRRC) guidelines serve as the foundation for refugee administration in Bangladesh. The nation oversees 33 camps in Bhasan Char and Cox's Bazar, and it updates its joint response plans with UNHCR and IOM every year (observerbd. com). Nepal does not have a formal Refugee Status Determination (RSD) process; instead, it relies on the Immigration Act 1992 and ad hoc Cabinet decisions. About 20,000 Tibetan and Bhutanese refugees receive ID cards and basic services from UNHCR Nepal, which offers protection (kathmandupost. com).

[16] Sri Lanka operates under the 2006 Terms of Reference with UNHCR and upholds the Immigrants & Emigrants Act of 1949. In addition to managing RSD, UNHCR has a liaison office that supports about 500 asylum-seekers, including Rohingya, following a reduction in

2024. [17]

The fact that refugees are legally regarded as foreigners in all of these nations—aside from Afghanistan—is a significant drawback. This means that executive authorities have the final say over their legal status, documents, and socioeconomic rights. The absence of a dedicated asylum statute also hampers effective burden sharing and planning for durable solutions. III. Role of UNHCR & Other Agencies (2024 figures)

UNHCR collaborates with the Refugee Relief & Repatriation Commission and co-leads the Inter Sector Coordination Group. Bangladesh

960 000 Rohingya in 33 camps +

Bhasan Char [19] The government manages neighboring nation groups, while the UNHCR performs RSD for others. Delhi headquarters and ten state centers. India

236 768

refugees of nationalities [20] UNHCR collaborates on livelihoods and legal identity programs with Home Affairs and local municipalities. Nepal

19 559 refugees (Bhutanese &

Tibetan) [21] Sri Lanka

500 asylum-seekers after 2024

draw-down [22] UNHCR RSD, UNRC liaison office, and Convention accession advocacy. Registered Refugees in South Asia Registered Refugees in South Asia (2024) Sri Lanka Registered Refugess (2024) Nepal India Bangladesh Pakistan 1700000 1000000 1500000 2000000

Collection. Refugee population figures for 2024 are taken from the UNHCR Operational Data Portal, UNHCR India, UNHCR Pakistan, and UNHCR Nepal. India’s legal approach is based on the Foreigners Act, Article 21 jurisprudence. Rohingya data are supported by Bangladesh’s Refugee Relief and Repatriation Commission and UNHCR Bangladesh. Nepal’s framework is derived from the Immigration Act 1992 and reports by The Kathmandu Post. UNHCR’s operations and mandates in the region are detailed in its Global Focus reports.

3. Regional Mechanisms for Refugee Protection in South Asia

3.1. Role of SAARC – Limitations and Potential

The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), established in 1985, was intended as a platform to promote regional integration, growth in the economy, and cultural and social cooperation among South Asian nations. Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka are among the member nations. Although SAARC was established with the goal of tackling shared issues like as poverty, disaster relief, and human development, its efficacy in addressing refugee protection and cross-border displacement has been limited by its institutional and political constraints. Limitations (i) Charter Restrictions on Bilateral Issues: The SAARC Charter's Article X expressly states that "bilateral and contentious issues" are not to be discussed.

Since the majority of refugee problems in South Asia stem from bilateral disagreements or internal conflicts—like the tensions between India and Pakistan over Kashmir or the issues between Myanmar and Bangladesh over the Rohingya crisis—this restriction has been a significant obstacle to solving these crises. [23] (ii) Unanimity Requirement: The need for unanimous votes from all eight-member states makes it difficult to take swift action, especially when it comes to politically delicate or humanitarian matters involving intricate state interests. [24] For example, because of geopolitical rivalry and mistrust, it is sometimes impossible to reach an agreement even when several governments are dealing with comparable migratory challenges.

(iii) Ad-hoc and Fragmented Approaches: South Asian nations still rely on national policies or UNHCR operations, which are frequently carried out inconsistently and

without coordination, in the lack of a regional framework for refugees. As a result, the region's refugee protection is beset by fragmentation, inconsistent policies, and insufficient legal protections. (iv) Lack of Legal and Institutional Mandate: SAARC does not have a regional court or enforceable legal framework to monitor refugee rights or enforce human rights standards, in contrast to the European Union or the African Union. SAARC's capacity to handle the legal issues of statelessness, non-refoulement, and asylum is weakened by the lack of such institutions.

Potential for Constructive Engagement Apart from these drawbacks, SAARC has a few neglected channels that may be enhanced to further regional humanitarian goals: (i) Human Security through the SAARC Social Charter (2004): the SAARC Social Charter recognizes the significance of addressing the vulnerabilities of disadvantaged communities. Although it does not specifically address refugees, its paradigm is sufficiently inclusive to include concerns about social exclusion, livelihood loss, and relocation. [25] By adding refugee issues to this charter, SAARC may start incorporating a human-security-focused approach into its policy-making process. (ii) Institutional Platforms for Humanitarian Cooperation: Organizations that already deal with transboundary disasters and socioeconomic initiatives include the SAARC Development Fund (SDF) and the SAARC Disaster Management Centre (SDMC).

It would be possible to develop or repurpose these platforms to incorporate a humanitarian response mechanism for victims of ethnic conflict, internally displaced people (IDPs), and climate refugees. (iii) Opportunities for Soft Regionalism and Policy Dialogue: SAARC can operate as a platform for regional research partnerships, best-practice sharing, and non-binding pronouncements on refugee protection, even if it might not be able to enact legally binding accords. Under SAARC's auspices, academic networks, think tanks, and civil society collaborations may start track-two diplomacy to develop political will for next frameworks.

(iv) Building Confidence through Functional Cooperation: By concentrating on technical collaboration, SAARC may gradually create a cooperative atmosphere in areas like humanitarian aid, refugee registration systems, and border control. By using a functional approach, the political impasse that comes with bilateral conflicts is avoided.

4. Challenges to Regional Cooperation

There is still little regional collaboration in South Asia, despite the rising necessity for a coordinated response to refugee protection. A number of interconnected issues is hindering the development of a unified framework for refugee protection under platforms such as SAARC or bilateral groups. (i) National Security and Border Control Concerns: States in South Asia largely see cross-border displacement from a security perspective rather than a humanitarian one. Inflows of refugees are sometimes viewed as possible dangers to national identity, internal stability, or even as potential breeding grounds for terrorism or rebellion. For example, popular and political sentiments in India about the hosting of displaced people have become more inflexible due to worries about infiltration from Bangladesh and security risks from Rohingya refugees.

Trust is damaged and regional consensus is hampered by this securitization of migration. [26] (ii) Political Sensitivities and Bilateral Tensions: Attempts to resolve refugee concerns regionally face obstacles by long-standing geopolitical rivalry, particularly between Bangladesh and Myanmar and India and Pakistan. Since unresolved political disputes frequently result in refugee flows, humanitarian collaboration sometimes seems to be an admission of political failure or meddling in the internal affairs of another nation. Humanitarian concerns have been politicized, resulting in either delay or biased treatment of refugee groups according to ethnicity or national interest. (iii) Lack of Legal Harmonization: Except for Afghanistan, the majority of South Asian nations have not ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol.

Therefore, rather than being managed by a unified set of laws, refugee protection is regulated by a patchwork of administrative rules. Because national laws differ, it is impossible to provide uniform guidelines for determining asylum, non-refoulement, documentation,

and repatriation. The disparity in treatment across borders is made worse by the lack of a legally enforceable regional mechanism. (iv) Resource Constraints and Burden-Sharing: Many South Asian nations, which suffer from poverty, unemployment, and underdevelopment, frequently point to a lack of funding and infrastructure as justifications for not accepting migrants or taking part in official resettlement initiatives. [27] There is no system in place for regional burdensharing, either in terms of monetary compensation or actual relocation, unlike the European Union. Therefore, without sufficient assistance from neighbors, frontline states like Bangladesh or Pakistan are disproportionately responsible for supporting refugees. (v) Rise of Populism and Xenophobia: The political discourse in South Asia has also been influenced by the worldwide growth of populist nationalism.

Populist politicians in a number of nations incite xenophobic feelings and opposition to international standards by portraying refugees as dangers to domestic order, employment, or cultural identity. [28] As refugee support becomes a politically unpalatable stance at home, this environment further reduces political will for regional cooperation. (vi) Non-Recognition of Refugees and Treatment as Illegal Migrants: In nations like India, Nepal, or Sri Lanka, where official recognition procedures are lacking, refugees are legally categorized as unlawful migrants. Because of this classification, they are unable to get legal protections, work, healthcare, or education. Efforts to establish specific safeguards under regional law are hampered when refugees are confused with economic migrants or illegal immigrants, which blurs boundaries in public discourse and policy-making.

5. Human rights obligations under ICCPR, ICESCR, CRC, CEDAW

Regardless of being non- signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention, South Asian nations are still required to uphold the rights of everyone under their control, including refugees and asylum seekers, by important international human rights accords such the ICCPR, ICESCR, CRC, and CEDAW. Civil and political rights including due process, the right to life, and protection from torture are guaranteed under the ICCPR. Regardless of one's immigration status, the ICESCR ensures access to food, housing, healthcare, education, and employment.

The CRC, which has been approved by every state in South Asia, requires particular rights for children, such as the right to education, family unity, identity, and prevention of exploitation. According to CEDAW, nations must abolish gender-based violence and discrimination while guaranteeing refugee women access to legal protection, healthcare, and education. Even without a framework of domestic or regional refugee legislation, these measures taken together offer a solid legal foundation for protecting the rights of refugees.

6. Conclusion

South Asia’s refugee crises highlight the urgent need for a unified, rights-based regional response to forced migration. Despite hosting millions of refugees, the region lacks a formal legal framework and relies on inconsistent national policies. While SAARC holds potential for coordination, institutional limitations and political barriers have stalled progress. Nonetheless, binding obligations under international human rights treaties require states to protect refugee rights. The way forward lies in developing a regional compact that balances sovereignty with shared responsibility, using SAARC’s existing mechanisms and promoting legal harmonization and diplomatic cooperation for a more cohesive refugee protection system. South Asia welcomes millions of refugees, but there is no single regional legal framework to safeguard them.

The current solutions are scattered, relying on national legislation, bilateral collaboration, and informal methods. SAARC has yet to play an important role because of political and institutional constraints. To overcome these issues, a South Asian Regional Refugee Framework based on shared responsibility, human rights, and regional collaboration is urgently needed to ensure that refugees are treated consistently and humanely throughout the area.

References [1] Ahmed, Z. S. (2019). Managing the refugee crises in South Asia: The role of SAARC. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 28(2), 210–219. https://doi. org/10. 1177/0117196819837044 Accessed on 23 June 2025 at 9:00pm. [2] Ahmad, N. (2019). Options for protecting refugees in South Asia. Harvard International Law Journal. Retrieved from: https://journals. law. harvard. edu/ilj/2019/09/options-forprotecting-refugees-in-south-asia/ and accessed on 21 June 2025 at 8:00am. [3] Reddy, P. A. , & Apoorva, S. (2019). The necessity to develop a regional refugee framework for South Asia. Völkerrechtsblog. Retrieved from: https://voelkerrechtsblog. org/thenecessity-to-develop-a-regional-refugee-frameworkfor-south-asia/ and accessed on 24 June 2025 at 10:15am. [4] Zamindar, V. (2007). The long partition and the making of modern South Asia. Columbia University Press. [5] Butalia, U.

(1998). The other side of silence: Voices from the Partition of India. Penguin Books India. [6] Raghavan, S. (2013). 1971: A global history of the creation of Bangladesh. Harvard University Press. [7] Central Tibetan Administration. (2023). Tibetan refugees in exile. Retrieved from: https://tibet. net and accessed on 26 June 2025 at 8:00am. [8] Government of Tamil Nadu. (2023). Sri Lankan refugees in Tamil Nadu. [9] UNHCR Pakistan. (2023). Afghan refugees in Pakistan: A statistical overview. [10] UNHCR Bangladesh. (2023). Operational report 2023. [11] Human Rights Watch. (2007). Last hope: Bhutanese refugees. [12] Wikipedia contributors. (n. d. ). Refugees in India. Wikipedia. Retrieved from: https://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Refugees_in_India and accessed on 27 June, 2025 at

9:30pm. [13] India Code. (n.d.). The Foreigners Act, 1946. Retrieved from: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1441 and accessed on 27 June, 2025 at 9:40pm. [14] UNHCR.

(n.d.). Protection in Pakistan.

Retrieved from: https://www.unhcr.org/pk/protection, and accessed on 27 June, 2025 at 11:30pm. [15] UNHCR.

(n.d.).

UNHCR

in Pakistan. Retrieved from: https://www.unhcr.org/in/where-we-work/countries/pakistan and accessed on 28 June,

2025 at 11:30pm.

[16] UNHCR.

(n.d.). Bangladesh - Country Operations. Retrieved from: https://data.unhcr.org/en/country/bgd and accessed on 28 June, 2025 at 10:30pm [17] UNHCR.

(n.d.). India – Where We Work. Retrieved from: https://www.unhcr.org/where-we-work/countries/india [18] UNHCR. (n.d.). Nepal – Where We Work. https://www.unhcr.org/in/where-wework/countries/nepal and accessed on 26 June, 2025 at 09:30pm [19] Groundviews. (2025, June 20). Challenges for refugees and asylum seekers in Sri Lanka. Retrieved from: https://groundviews.org/2025/06/20/challenges-for-refugeesand-asylum-seekers-in-sri-lanka/ and accessed on 25 June, 2025 at 09:30am [20] UNHCR.

(n.d.). India –UNHCR.

https://www.unhcr.org/where-wework/countries/india [21] UNHCR. (n.d.). Nepal. UNHCR. Retrieved from: https://www.unhcr.org/in/wherewe-work/countries/nepal and accessed on 25 June, 2025 at 09:30am [22] Groundviews. (2025, June 20). Challenges for refugees and asylum seekers in Sri Lanka. https://groundviews.org/2025/06/20/challenges-for-refugees-and-asylumseekers-in-sri-lanka/ [23] SAARC. (n.d.). SAARC Charter. https://saarc-sec.org

[24] Oberoi, P. (2006). Refugees and the state: Practices of asylum and care in India, 1947–

2000. Oxford University Press.

[25] SAARC. (2004). SAARC social charter. https://saarc-sec.org/text/social-charter [26] Baruah, S. (2005). Durable disorder: Understanding the politics of Northeast India. Oxford University Press. [27] Samaddar, R. (Ed.). (2003). Refugees and the state: Practices of asylum and care in India, 1947–2000. SAGE Publications. [28] Ahmed, I. (1999). State, nation and refugee populations in South Asia. South Asian Refugee Watch, 1.