Nation-State and Its Production of Statelessness: A Study of Chin Refugees

  • Meghna Kajla


The South Asian states do not have proper conventions and laws for refugees, immigrants or stateless people. The borders of the states and their institutions are not strict in not accepting immigrants; rather the borders are more or less known to be porous in the region due to its sharing of boundaries with each other. It is in the neighbouring countries where stateless people seek asylum by entering through illegal ways or accepting them as asylum seekers. Once refugees or outsiders enter the asylum state then the laws and rights convene according to its constitution or international conventions signed by the asylum state. It is at the convenience of asylum state; whether it prefers to build camps or construct sites for refugees for their stay. However, refugees stay in a country for a longer time until the situation of their origin country comes back to normal and accepts them as citizens. This leads to a question that Hannah Arendt addresses of either repatriation or naturalisation. If any of these processes is accepted by states of either origin or state of asylum for the moment then the larger question still remains, how these states will comply with giving citizenship. It may again declare the same people as non-citizens or aliens and create them stateless, and perpetuates a vicious cycle of statelessness in South Asian states. The people living as stateless remain in camps for years and their situation never improves in the interplay of state and citizens. There are many counter arguments of cosmopolitan citizenship or democratisation of borders (Balibar), on the other hand a radical argument of eating others’ share (Ranciere). How then does one address the complicated situation of refugees like Chin living in India in camps, rented rooms and apartments with UNHCR identity? The refugees require certain rights and laws for existence rather than living as stateless or without any representation. It is in this regard that the nation-state is the authority in creation of stateless people (Arendt) and in contemporary times the only authority to accept them as citizens.


Citizenship Chins Myanmar Rights Border State 


  1. “A Constant State of Fear”: Chin Refugee Women and Children in New Delhi. (2014). Accessed June 11, 2018.
  2. Arendt, H. (2017). The decline of the nation-state and the end of the rights of man. In H. Arendt (Ed.), The origins of totalitarianism (pp. 349–396). St Ives: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  3. Baehr, P. (2002). The public and the private realm. In H. Arendt (Ed.), The portable (pp. 182–230). Toronto: Penguin Books Ltd..Google Scholar
  4. Balibar, E.. (2010). At the borders of citizenship: A democracy in translation? European Journal of Social Theory. Sage Publications, 13(3): 315–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banerjee, P. (2016). Permanent exceptions to citizens: The stateless in South Asia, ed. Nasreen Chowdhory. International journal of Migration and Border Studies (Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.), 2, 119–131.Google Scholar
  6. Basavapatna, S. (2012). Chins in Mizoram: The case of borders making brother illegal. Journal of Bordeerlands Studies, 61–72. Accessed May, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bauböck, R. (2012). Migration and citizenship: Normative debates. In M. R. Rosenblum & D. J. Tichenor (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the politics of international migration (pp. 594–613). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Belton, K. A. (2011). The neglected non-citizen: Statelessness and liberal political theory. Journal of Global Ethics, 7(1), 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benhabib, S. (2004). The rights of others aliens, residents, and citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bhattacharjee, S. (2008). India needs a refugee law. Economic and Political Weekly, 43(9), 71–75.Google Scholar
  11. Bhaumik, S., & Bhattacharya, J. (2005). Autonomy of northeast: The hills of Tripura and Mizoram. In R. Samaddar (Ed.), The politics of autonomy Indian experiences. New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Bose, T. K. (1997). Introduction. In T. K. Bose & R. Manchanda (Eds.), States, citizens and outsiders: The uprooted people of South Asia. Kathmandu: Union Press Pvt Ltd.Google Scholar
  13. Burma Citizenship Law. (1982). Accessed May 2018.
  14. Canafe, N. (2018). Statelessness as permanent state: Challenges to human security paradigm. Conflict Transformation and Security, 1–14. Accessed 11 June 2018.
  15. Chin Refugees’ Indian Dilemma. (2014). Accessed June 11, 2018.
  16. Chowdhory, N. (2013). Marginalisation and exclusion: Politics of non-citizen rights in post-colonial South Asia. Refugee Watch A South Asian Journal on Forced Migration (Mahanirban Calcutta research Group), 42, 1–16.Google Scholar
  17. Constitution of India-National Portal of India (2018). Accessed Oct 2018.
  18. Dunn, E. C., & Cons, J. (2014). Aleatory sovereignty and the rule of sensitive spaces. Antipode, 46(1), 92–109. Accessed May 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Egreteau, R. (2017). A political history of Myanmar. Economic and Political Weekly, LII(39), 27–29.Google Scholar
  20. Fraser, N., & Gordon, L. (1994). Civil citizenship against social citizenship? In B. Van Steenbergen (Ed.), The condition of citizenship (pp. 90–107). London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Ghosh, P. S. (2004). Population movements and interstate conflicts. In R. Samaddar (Ed.), Peace studies: An introduction to the concept, scope, and themes (Vol. 1, pp. 226–253). New Delhi: Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd.Google Scholar
  23. Ghosh, P. S. (2016). Migrants, refugees and statelessness in South Asia. New Delhi: Sage Publication Pvt Ltd.Google Scholar
  24. Hobbes, T. (1998). Of the first and second natural law, and of contract. In J. C. A. Gaskin (Ed.), Leviathan (pp. 86–94). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Human Rights Watch. (2009). We are like forgotten people: The chin people of Burma: Unsafe in Burma, unprotected in India, Human Rights Watch. Accessed May 2018.
  26. Jalal, A. (1995). Democracy and authoritarianism in South Asia, a comparative and historical perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jops, P., Lenette, C., & Breckenridge, J. (2016). A context of risk: Uncovering the lived experiences of chin refugee women negotiating a livelihood. Refuge, 32(3), 84–94.Google Scholar
  28. Khan, I. (2004). Protecting the rights of refugees. In R. Samaddar (Ed.), Peace studies an introduction to the concept, scope and themes (pp. 190–205). New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Manchanda, R. (1997). No where people: Burmese refugees in India. In R. Manchanda & T. Bose (Eds.), States, citizens and outsiders: The uprooted people of South Asia. Kathmandu: Union Press Pvt Ltd.Google Scholar
  30. Mann, M. (1993). Nation-states in Europe and other continents: Diversifying, developing, not dying. Daedalus (Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press), 122(3), 115–140.Google Scholar
  31. Marshall, T. H. (1950). Citizenship and social class and other essays. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. McConnachie, K. (2018). Boundaries and belonging in the indo-Myanmar borderlands: Chin refugees in Mizoram. Journal of Refugee Studies, 31, 1–20. Accessed May 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nair, R. (1997). Refugee protection in South Asia. In T. Bose & R. Manchanda (Eds.), States, citizens and outsiders: The uprooted people of South Asia. Kathmandu: Union Press Pvt Ltd.Google Scholar
  34. Parekh, S.. (2014). Beyond the ethics of admission: Stateless people, refugee camps and moral obligation. Philosophy and Social Criticism (Sage Publications), 40(7), 645–663. doi: Accessed May 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Piang, L. L. K. (2013). Ethnic mobilisation for decolonisation: Colonial legacy (the case of the zo people in Northeast India). Asian Ethnicity, 14(3), 342–363. Accessed June 11, 2018.
  36. Ranciere, J. (2004). Who is the subject of the rights of man? The South Asian Quaterly, 103(2/3), 297–310.Google Scholar
  37. Singh, D. K. (2010). Statelessness in South Asia: The Chakmas between Bangladesh and India. New Delhi: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Singh, U. K. (Ed.). (2018). The ‘inside-outside’ body National Human Rights Commission of India. Economic and Political Weekly, LIII(5), 33–39.Google Scholar
  39. Stephen, L. (2012). Conceptualising transborder communities. In M. R. Rosenblum & D. J. Tichenor (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the politics of international migration (pp. 456–477). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Thangtungnung, H. (2015). Ethnic history and identity of the zo tribes in north East India. Journal of North East India Studies, 5(1), 39–50.Google Scholar
  41. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2012). Self-study module on statelessness. Accessed May 2018.
  42. Weinman, M. D. (2017). Arendt and the legitimate expectation for hospitality and membership today. Moral Philosophy and Politics, 5(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meghna Kajla
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of DelhiDelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations