From deportation to the sea: Rohingya survivors expose regional failures in protection

A group of Rohingya refugees—already displaced by genocide—has become the latest evidence of a widening regional protection crisis, after being forcibly expelled by Indian authorities, abandoned at sea, and ultimately pushed into a precarious existence in Thailand.

An investigation by Fortify Rights reveals a coordinated pattern of unlawful deportation, maritime abandonment, and systemic denial of refugee protections across South and Southeast Asia.

At the center of the case are approximately 40 Rohingya refugees, many of whom held documentation from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, yet were allegedly subjected to forced return and abuse by Indian authorities in 2025.

I. India’s Legal Liability: Breach of Non-Refoulement Norms

The actions attributed to Indian authorities raise serious concerns under international law, particularly the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning individuals to territories where they face threats to life or freedom.

Although India is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, legal experts emphasize that non-refoulement constitutes customary international law, binding on all states regardless of treaty ratification.

The reported sequence—detention under false pretenses, forced transport, and maritime abandonment near Myanmar—may constitute:

• • • • Constructive refoulement (indirect forced return)
      • Collective expulsion
      • Violations of the Convention Against Torture (to which India is a signatory)

The involvement of state actors, including security forces and naval personnel, further elevates the incident from administrative deportation to a potentially prosecutable act under international human rights law.

The case has drawn scrutiny from UN officials and may intersect with ongoing proceedings at the International Court of Justice, where Myanmar faces genocide allegations.

II. Maritime Expulsion as a Regional Pattern

The forced abandonment of refugees at sea is not an isolated incident but reflects an emerging maritime expulsion strategy increasingly observed across the region.

This tactic—characterized by denial of landing rights, pushbacks, or direct abandonment—has several strategic features:

• • • • Jurisdictional ambiguity: By abandoning individuals in international or contested waters, states attempt to evade legal accountability
      • Evidence suppression: Confiscation of documents and communication devices limits traceability
      • Risk externalization: Responsibility is effectively transferred to another state or left unresolved

Historical parallels can be drawn with past pushback practices in the Andaman Sea, where Rohingya boat refugees were denied entry by multiple states.

In this case, survivors report being misled with promises of relocation to Indonesia, only to be abandoned near conflict-affected مناطق of Myanmar’s Tanintharyi Region.

III. ASEAN’s Protection Failure and Institutional Paralysis

The incident underscores long-standing structural weaknesses within Association of Southeast Asian Nations in responding to cross-border humanitarian crises.

Despite repeated displacement waves involving Rohingya populations, ASEAN has failed to establish:

• • • • A binding regional refugee protection framework
      • Coordinated search-and-rescue protocols
      • Mechanisms for burden-sharing and resettlement

The principle of non-interference continues to limit collective action, particularly regarding Myanmar’s internal crisis.

Thailand’s policies further reflect these systemic gaps. Although it introduced a National Screening Mechanism (NSM) in 2019, implementation remains minimal, and Rohingya refugees are effectively excluded under national security classifications.

As a result, refugees remain trapped in a legal vacuum, vulnerable to detention, exploitation, and secondary refoulement.

IV. Bangladesh–Myanmar Geopolitical Implications

The case also has direct implications for Bangladesh, which hosts over one million Rohingya refugees in Cox’s Bazar—the largest refugee settlement globally.

For Dhaka, the incident reinforces several strategic concerns:

1. Erosion of Repatriation Credibility

Ongoing abuses against Rohingya inside Myanmar, combined with active armed conflict, further undermine the viability of voluntary repatriation frameworks negotiated between Bangladesh and Myanmar.

2. Secondary Displacement Pressures

As protection deteriorates in countries like India and Thailand, Bangladesh risks renewed influxes of refugees seeking safety.

3. Security Narratives vs Humanitarian Reality

Regional governments increasingly frame Rohingya movements through security lenses—linking them to irregular migration or transnational crime—while failing to address root causes: statelessness and systemic persecution.

4. Diplomatic Constraints

Bangladesh remains constrained by limited leverage over Myanmar and inconsistent international pressure, despite ongoing genocide proceedings and documentation efforts.

V. Survivors in Limbo

After months in Myanmar’s conflict zones—where they faced aerial bombardment and forced displacement—the survivors crossed into Thailand in early 2026.

Today, most remain in undisclosed locations, fearing arrest and deportation.

Their accounts describe a continuous chain of displacement:

Genocide → Flight → Detention → Maritime expulsion → Conflict exposure → Irregular entry → Legal invisibility

This trajectory reflects not only individual suffering but a systemic collapse of refugee protection across multiple jurisdictions.

Conclusion: A Regional Crisis Demanding Legal Accountability

The Rohingya case highlights a dangerous normalization of unlawful practices:

• • • • Forced returns disguised as administrative procedures
      • Maritime abandonment as a deterrence tool
      • Legal exclusion under national security pretexts

Human rights advocates argue that without accountability, such practices risk becoming entrenched.

“States are not merely failing to protect refugees—they are actively contributing to their harm,” said a regional analyst familiar with the case.

The responsibility now lies with governments across South and Southeast Asia to uphold international legal norms and establish credible, coordinated protection mechanisms.