India objects to UN report's reference to 'Assan', questions claims on migrant rights
India has challenged a UN report on migrant rights over a reference to “Assan and Northern India”, arguing that the wording does not identify a recognisable jurisdiction or provide enough information to substantiate a country-specific allegation.
The objection was raised by Ministry of External Affairs Deputy Secretary Barkha Tamrakar during an interactive dialogue with Gehad Madi, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants. India also questioned the report's interpretation of international law, particularly its treatment of children's rights and irregular migration.
In its statement, India pointed to paragraph 27, footnote 32, where the report refers to “Assan and Northern India”. Tamrakar said the reference did not identify a case, legal proceeding, authority, date, law or source.
“Assan is not the name of an Indian state or a recognised jurisdiction. If the intended reference is Assam, the report should say so accurately. Northern India is not a legal or administrative jurisdiction,” she said.
India rejected the reference as “imprecise and unsupported” and said that if the report intended to discuss citizenship-related processes in Assam, it should specify the process concerned and distinguish between allegations, expert concerns, administrative decisions and judicial findings.
“ A country-specific allegation cannot be made through a typographical error and an unidentified geographical expression,” Tamrakar said.
India also objected to what it described as the report's presentation of broad policy positions, unverified allegations and submissions from advocacy groups as established UN findings. Tamrakar said country-specific claims must be supported by verifiable sources and allow the state concerned an opportunity to respond.
The statement also addressed the report's treatment of children's rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which India is a party. Tamrakar referred to Articles 3, 9 and 10, including Article 3's requirement that the best interests of the child be a primary consideration.
She argued that this principle did not make a child's interests the sole consideration in every case or automatically override decisions concerning public order, border management, criminal conduct, nationality or immigration status.
“India cannot accept the report's categorical propositions as though they were universally binding legal treaty rules,” she said.
India further rejected an approach that treats irregular migration only as a question of vulnerability, arguing that it can also constitute a breach of immigration law.
Tamrakar outlined three principles India said should guide the report's recommendations: country-specific references must be accurate and verifiable; recommendations and policy preferences must be distinguished from binding treaty obligations; and child protection must be pursued through due process, family-sensitive procedures, cooperation between states and child protection authorities, and safe and regular migration pathways.
India said these measures should not require states to abandon legitimate functions or rely on generalised allegations.
Reaffirming India's willingness to engage with the United Nations and other countries on migration, Tamrakar said the credibility of human rights advocacy depended on accuracy, applicable law and respect for the sovereign equality of states.