Conclusion

This conclusion understands the aftermath of an idea of the refugee that was reliant on a notion of self-determination that was not just limited to national independence but which aimed at transforming a hierarchical international order. Even as the emancipatory potential of self-determination dimmed, the prioritisation of the national pulpit has continued—even as the idea of who naturally belongs to the nation is undergoing a shift with recent citizenship laws—with impact on both humanitarian practice and the enjoyment of individual rights. India’s case is thus revealing of a wider trend, the right to asylum and the position of refugees subject to nation-state needs and desires, and ad hoc treatment used to break down rights that should accrue to all people. It thus asks if the question of refugees rests, above all else, on the collective identity of those receiving and offering assistance to them.