India accuses Bangladesh of denial and delay in accepting undocumented migrants

India has stepped up deportations of undocumented migrants at its eastern border since May 2025, escalating a dispute with Bangladesh over what New Delhi calls persistent “denial and delay” in accepting people India claims are Bangladeshi nationals and some Rohingya refugees. The campaign, driven by a nationwide directive and an uptick in expulsions across several states, has produced border standoffs, accusations of due process violations, and rising humanitarian concerns for families trapped between two countries.

Between May 7 and June 15, 2025, Indian authorities expelled more than 1,500 Muslim men, women, and children to Bangladesh, among them about 100 Rohingya refugees from Myanmar, according to border reporting cited by rights groups. By June, the total number of Bangladeshi migrants deported from six Indian states had crossed 2,000, based on data reported by the Mixed Migration Centre. Bangladesh has refused entry to many of the people India tried to push across, saying it cannot accept individuals who are not proven citizens. India, in turn, has taken back dozens who showed they were Indian citizens after being turned away by Bangladeshi officials.

Policy directive, timeline, and operational rollout

The immediate catalyst was a May 19, 2025 instruction from India’s Union Home Ministry telling all states and union territories to verify the identity and nationality of suspected undocumented migrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar within 30 days. Those found with fake documents would be deported. States were told to set up detention centers for people awaiting removal.

The order, which Indian officials frame as a national security step, has spurred operations in Assam, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Odisha, Rajasthan, Tripura, Meghalaya, and West Bengal. Many of these states are governed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which argues that quicker expulsions will deter new arrivals and curb document fraud.

In practice, the fast-track approach has collided with Bangladesh’s position that many of the people presented at the border cannot be confirmed as citizens. Dhaka has formally asked India to pause the deportation drive, citing concerns over identification methods and the risk of creating stateless people.

This clash produced rare scenes at the frontier:

• 65 people were readmitted by India after Bangladesh refused them.
• A group of 13 was left at the zero line near Lalmonirghat, unable to enter Bangladesh and blocked from returning to India.

Indian officials cite porous borders, incomplete fencing, and widespread falsified documents as practical challenges. Assam authorities have pointed to an older legal framework—described as a law dating back to 1950—to justify continued removals even when verification proves difficult. Bangladesh’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has pushed back, arguing that any return must follow clear, evidence-based procedures that protect against wrongful expulsion and uphold international norms.

Human impact and legal concerns

Human rights groups warn that speed has overtaken fairness. Reports by Human Rights Watch and statements from the UN Special Rapporteur describe cases of arbitrary detention, denial of appeals, and forced returns without adequate checks of citizenship claims.

• Some expelled people reported being assaulted, having belongings seized, or being threatened by Indian border personnel.
• Several Rohingya refugees registered with the UN refugee agency said they were forced to record videos claiming Bangladeshi origin.
• Advocacy groups say such pressure blurs legal standards and undermines the right to seek protection.

The numbers are sobering:

• Rights monitors estimate at least 192 Rohingya refugees were expelled to Bangladesh during the May–June period.
• A separate incident reportedly forced 40 people to swim ashore in Myanmar.
• Border Guard Bangladesh recorded the 1,500-plus people expelled over a five-week period ending mid-June.
• The Mixed Migration Centre tracked more than 2,000 Bangladeshi migrants deported by June from six Indian states.

For families, the consequences are direct and painful: separation from relatives, loss of property, and fear of ending up without status. Children have been among the expelled, and community leaders in border districts describe rising anxiety as patrols increase and checkpoints tighten.

“Denial and delay” captures the diplomatic tone, but the day-to-day effect shows up in small human details: a mother who cannot prove her marriage record after a flood destroyed paperwork; a teenage boy whose parents’ names on different certificates do not match due to clerical errors; a worker who lived for years in India and faces removal despite pending appeals.

Legal advocates stress the verification window of 30 days is often too short for many people to gather proof, especially those from rural areas or with missing records. Lawyers handling these cases say many clients do not receive clear information about their right to challenge a finding before deportation, even though such safeguards are central to fair process.

Political context and historical backdrop

Bangladesh argues it should not be responsible for people who have no proven link to its territory. Dhaka officials note that irregular movement along the border dates back decades, often driven by poverty, family ties, and seasonal work. They warn that rushed removals can produce errors that neither country can fix later, leaving people stranded.

India counters that continuing inflows, incomplete fencing, and document fraud strain local resources and raise security issues, especially in sensitive districts. The debate sharpened after the change in Bangladesh’s political landscape in August 2024, when the fall of the Awami League government preceded a tougher Indian posture on border enforcement.

Experts point to a long, complicated migration pattern between the two neighbors since 1947. Assam and other border states have carried much of the pressure, and politics around citizenship, identity, and land have often flared.

For Rohingya refugees, the situation is particularly precarious. India once allowed limited access to schools and work, but since 2017 has moved toward aggressive removals. Rights groups say sending Rohingya back to places where they face danger violates international principles against refoulement—returning someone to a country where they risk harm. India is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, but international law experts argue that core protections against refoulement still apply.

Operational, humanitarian, and local impacts

Indian officials publicly describe the push as both a message and a mechanism: a message to deter undocumented entry and a mechanism to remove people with fraudulent papers. Bangladesh’s line is that forced or hasty returns without proof of citizenship will not be accepted.

The border impasse has left some migrants in limbo zones—sleeping outdoors, relying on volunteers for food, and uncertain if either side will take them. Border communities report:

• More patrols and checkpoints.
• Increased humanitarian need for water, shelter, and medical care.
• Crowded detention facilities and families separated during checks (reported in Assam).
• Limited access for civil society to monitor removals and detention sites (reported in West Bengal and Tripura).
• Arrests of people with suspected fake identity papers moved into fast-track verification (reported in Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra).

Bangladesh’s border districts report sudden arrivals of exhausted people without money or phones, short-notice attempts to push groups across, and disputes at crossing points. Local officials argue each case requires time, interviews, and document checks that cannot be rushed; without a clear bilateral system, denial and delay will continue because proof is often missing or contested.

Data, accountability, and international reactions

Multiple sources provide a partial picture and raise accountability concerns:

• Border Guard Bangladesh: recorded 1,500+ expulsions over a five-week period ending mid-June.
• Mixed Migration Centre: tracked 2,000+ Bangladeshi migrants deported by June from six Indian states.
• Human Rights Watch and the UN Special Rapporteur: flagged due process gaps and statelessness risks.

Rights NGOs call for a halt to removals without solid verification and for protection of Rohingya refugees. UN agencies press for stronger safeguards and access to those detained. Diplomats warn strained ties could spill over into trade and regional cooperation if the dispute remains unresolved.

India’s Ministry of Home Affairs maintains it is acting within the law and has circulated guidance to states on procedures. For official policy updates and directives, see the Ministry of Home Affairs. Bangladesh’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs continues to issue statements urging careful review of each case and respect for international standards.

Proposed solutions and practical advice

Diplomats and experts have floated options to resolve the impasse:

• Joint teams to conduct interviews.
• Shared databases to confirm identities.
• Clear timelines for decisions with written notices in local languages.
• Procedures to handle edge cases: children born in India to mixed-status parents; long-term residents with partial documents; and refugees who cannot be returned to danger.

For people facing removal, lawyers recommend practical steps:

1. Collect any identity document, however minor.
2. Gather school certificates, land records, voter slips, and sworn statements from community leaders.
3. Keep copies of everything.
4. Prepare emergency plans if a family member is detained (contact lists for legal aid and relatives).
5. Ask for written reasons for any deportation order and records of all interviews.

Advocacy groups emphasize asking for written records and requesting legal assistance promptly, since many deportations happen quickly and having documentation ready can make a difference.

Looking ahead

Both capitals say they are open to talks on new verification and repatriation procedures, but no deal had been reached as of August 31, 2025.

Key tensions that need addressing include:

• Balancing fast enforcement with fairness and due process.
• Treating refugees with appropriate protection and avoiding refoulement.
• Preventing statelessness and ensuring clear evidence-based returns.
• Tackling smuggling networks that profit from chaotic processes.
• Improving fencing, documentation systems, and cross-border coordination.

For people on the ground, the dispute is measured in days in detention, documents gathered, and the hope that the next hearing brings a clear answer rather than another stand at a border gate.