Nadeem Khan, Secretary of APCR, raised a series of questions regarding migration, demographic change, citizenship, and political narratives in India, arguing that public discussions on migration are often selective, politically motivated, and not supported by reliable data.
Addressing the issue of migration from Bangladesh, Khan contended that claims regarding largescale Bangladeshi migration into India are frequently presented without credible evidence. According to him, many statistics circulated in public discourse are used to construct a political narrative rather than reflect verified realities. He questioned the scientific basis of figures suggesting large daily inflows of migrants from Bangladesh and argued that such claims often fail to withstand scrutiny.
Khan maintained that migration should be discussed on the basis of evidence rather than narratives. While discussing Bangladesh, he argued that any serious conversation should also examine demographic changes within the country. He suggested comparing the size of the Hindu and Muslim populations at the time Bangladesh was formed with their present numbers. In his view, understanding where populations have moved over time is important for any meaningful discussion of migration patterns.
Referring to citizenship-related issues, Khan noted that migration during earlier historical periods was largely accepted, but argued that migration in later years raises different questions that require examination. He said discussions around migration should not focus solely on one period or one community but should examine broader demographic developments.
The APCR Secretary also argued that migration from Myanmar, or Burma, receives far less attention than migration from Bangladesh despite also being significant. He stated that public and political debates have focused narrowly on Bangladesh while overlooking other migration flows that may deserve equal consideration.
A major part of Khan’s remarks focused on the comparison between international migration and internal migration within India. He argued that if migration is to be debated honestly, then all forms of migration should be discussed rather than selectively targeting particular groups. As an example, he referred to Nepal and noted that Nepalese workers are present in many sectors across India. He questioned why migration from Nepal is rarely treated as a political issue despite concerns often being raised about migration from other neighbouring countries.
According to Khan, discussions about migration should also take into account India’s federal structure. He emphasised that Indian citizens have constitutional rights to move and settle anywhere in the country. He argued that when people migrate from one state to another in search of better opportunities, they are exercising legitimate rights available to them under the federal system.
Khan further stated that economic, environmental and social factors naturally encourage movement between states. People may relocate because of employment opportunities, changing living conditions or personal preferences. In this context, he argued that migration within the country should not be viewed selectively.
He also criticised what he described as inconsistencies in political responses to internal migration. Debates frequently emerge when migrants move into cities such as Mumbai, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Chennai, Coimbatore and regions of Kerala. These debates often focus on cultural change and competition for jobs. However, he argued that political parties frequently condemn anti-migrant sentiments only when doing so serves their interests.
Khan maintained that migration is often treated differently depending on who is moving, where they are moving and whether the resulting demographic changes benefit particular political constituencies. He argued that political responses vary according to electoral considerations rather than consistent principles.
A substantial portion of his remarks focused on migration from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh to other parts of India. Khan argued that migrants from these states have become influential in many urban centres and electoral constituencies. Referring to examples from Punjab, Delhi and southern India, he suggested that migrant populations have significantly affected local demographics, labour markets and political outcomes.
In some areas electoral success increasingly depends on the support of migrant communities. Khan questioned why demographic changes caused by internal migration are not discussed with the same intensity as demographic changes allegedly caused by international migration.
He argued that if demographic transformation is viewed as a concern in one context, then similar concerns should logically be raised in other contexts as well. In his view, there is a contradiction in political narratives that focus on external migration while ignoring internal population shifts that have altered local cultures and voting patterns.
Khan also linked migration to governance and economic development. He argued that migration is often driven by employment opportunities and that policymakers should examine the economic conditions that produce largescale movement of people from one region to another.
Pointing to states such as Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, he noted that some political parties have governed these regions for many years. Therefore, he argued, if residents continue to migrate elsewhere in search of work, governments should also be held accountable for the underlying economic circumstances that contribute to migration.
The discussion also touched on regional examples involving Assam, Bengal and neighbouring areas. Khan argued that migration patterns in these regions are deeply connected to historical administrative decisions, shifting borders and government policies. He stated that some districts have changed political affiliations over time and that migration into Assam was encouraged during certain historical periods.
Contemporary debates about migration in Assam cannot be understood without considering this historical background. Khan argued that historical developments, administrative changes and earlier migration policies all play a role in shaping present-day demographic realities.
He also raised questions about migration into West Bengal, including the economic influence of business communities and labour migration from other states. He argued that discussions about cultural preservation and demographic change are often applied selectively.
In his view, demographic changes that benefit particular economic or political interests receive little criticism, while similar changes in other contexts are portrayed negatively. He suggested that debates on migration and culture should be examined through a broader and more consistent lens.
Throughout his remarks, Khan repeatedly emphasised what he sees as political inconsistency in discussions surrounding migration. His central contention was that migration debates are shaped less by principle and more by political convenience. Parties often remain silent about forms of migration that support their electoral interests while highlighting forms of migration that can be used for political mobilisation.
Khan urged critics of migration to apply the same standards across all cases, whether migration is international or domestic and regardless of the communities involved. He argued that discussions should be grounded in evidence rather than selective narratives.
Concluding his remarks, the APCR Secretary called for a broader discussion of migration and demographic change. He argued that debates should consider all forms of migration rather than focusing on a single group. He also emphasised the importance of examining economic conditions, governance, historical factors and electoral politics when discussing migration-related issues.
Migration has become a highly politicised issue, and any serious discussion must address what the APCR Secretary described as the selective nature of current political narratives.