Refugees in host countries: A comparative study between Uyghurs in Turkey and Tibetans in India
| Author | Deeksha Pandey |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/20578911221128880 |
| Published date | 01 March 2023 |
| Date | 01 March 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Theoretical Endeavors |
Refugees in host countries: A
comparative study between
Uyghurs in Turkey and Tibetans
in India
Deeksha Pandey
Christ University, India
Abstract
The status of refugees in host nations may depend upon several factors, including the economic
situation of the receiving state, political alignments, international commitments, ethnic affinities,
the domestic refugee regime, security considerations and bilateral ties with the home country.
The study aims to discern the role that bilateral ties and domestic considerations play in the refu-
gee experience. Is there a pattern that can be drawn out from these two factors? The article uses
neoclassical realist and critical theories to better understand the phenomena, while employing the
case study method to make a comparative study. The study analyses how India and Turkey have
dealt with refugees belonging to two ethnic minorities of the Republic of China: the Tibetans
and the Uyghurs. The results show that the way the receiving states handle refugees depends
greatly on domestic considerations. It becomes clear that even though bilateral ties between
the host and the home nation are important, no simple deduction can be made on how this affects
the treatment of refugees. Both cases provide varied response patterns; it is only through a blend
of realpolitik and critical theory that the phenomena can be understood. Mapping refugees and
their movements, as well as their status in the host countries, determines many of the policies
created for their welfare. The article therefore attempts to provide a framework for a better
understanding of the phenomena by considering bilateral ties and domestic considerations.
Keywords
bilateralism, China, comparative politics, critical theories, ethnic minorities, India, refugees,
Tibetans, Turkey, Uyghurs, Xinjiang
Corresponding author:
Deeksha Pandey, International Studies, PoliticalScience and History, Christ University, Hosur Rd, Bhavani Nagar,S.G. Palya,
Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
Email: deeksha.pandey137@gmail.com
Theoretical Endeavors
Asian Journal of Comparative Politics
2023, Vol. 8(1) 400–421
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/20578911221128880
journals.sagepub.com/home/acp
Introduction
The flight of persecuted populations from their countries to seek refuge in other nations has been a
long-drawn phenomenon. The status of refugee is often difficult for asylum seekers due to the host
nations not wanting an added economic burden or for so-called security reasons. Refugee flows to
countries, and their assimilation or status, depend on a host of factors, including the bilateral ties
between the home country and the host country. In this study, two ethnic minority groups in
China –the Tibetans and the Uyghurs –forcibly sought refuge in other nations. Their status in
their host nations, in this case India for the Tibetans and Turkey for the Uyghurs, influences or
is influenced by the bilateral ties these two nations have with China. Assimilation and the status
of the two ethnic groups vary according to the country they flee; the case studies are an example
of this phenomenon. Several inquiries are made in this regard. How domestic ethnic tensions
can spill over borders is one such question. Another is how this spillage of ethnic tension influences
the bilateral ties between the host and home countries. Looking at China’s ambitions to become a
global hegemon, it is also imperative to explore how it deals with states that provide asylum to
ethnic minorities fleeing Chinese-controlled territory. What are the consequences for those states
in terms of dealings with China? Are the status of refugees and bilateral ties co-dependent on
each other? The difference in the status of refugees in various countries indicates that the bilateral
politics between the host and home country play a massive role in determining status and its accom-
panying freedoms. How the host country treats refugees directly affects the bilateral relationship
between the host and home countries. However, response patterns may vary according to the
context in which countries accept refugees. Refugee groups in any country traversed are constantly
embroiled in political upheaval or become the reason for it. According to Durneika (2019), the
refugee movement is a mechanism for the internationalisation of domestic ethnic strife, refugees
being created as an outcome of ethnic violence within states. This is something that holds in the
Chinese case as well. The desire to create a unified Chinese identity has led to ethnic tensions
between the Han majority and the ethnic minorities within the confines of the borders of the
People’s Republic of China (PRC). Ethnic strife, when it leads to outward migration, as in the
case of the Uyghurs and the Tibetans, leads to a domestic issue spilling across borders. It is there-
fore vital to understand how refugees or asylum seekers navigate the temporal and literal space pro-
vided to them in their host nations, and how these host countries carve out that space considering
their limitations and opportunities.
Previous studies have highlighted the integration of minority diaspora with the host community,
while also evaluating the varied factors that influence this process. Korac (2003) explains how inte-
gration is a two-way process between the host and refugee population. The work also outlines how a
top-down approach is taken when looking at the process of assimilation and how power dynamics
influence studies on the same. However, the article does not look at the power dynamics external
to the microcosm of the receiving country, especially important in the case of China, which
through its networks has repeatedly tried to coerce Uyghur and Tibetan refugees and diaspora
abroad. In a similar vein, various authors like Bentz (2012) have made detailed studies on the
status of Tibetanrefugees in India. A brief literature survey on the topic makes it clearthat while mul-
tiple studies exist, there is a gap in comparing the experiences of two severely persecuted ethnic
minorities from China in two different nations. It becomes crucial in the case of refugee movement
and mapping to analysehow each country responds to the refugeesdepending upon its bilateral stand-
ing with the home country and how this affects the way the refugees are treated. A comparative study
helps bridge this gapin understanding this intertwining of domestic and international considerations.
Pandey 401
To continue reading
Request your trial