Bordered Lives: Bangladeshi Women’s Migration To India, Precarity, And The Gap Between Policy And Ground Realities – Analysis

Introduction

On winter nights along the narrow earthen embankments that mark parts of the India–Bangladesh border, small groups of people move quickly through fields of jute and paddy, guided by brokers who know where the floodlights dim and the patrol shifts change. Among them are women and adolescent girls leaving villages in Khulna, Jessore, or Kurigram, heading toward Indian towns in West Bengal or Assam where a cousin has promised work as a domestic helper, a garment worker, or simply “some job in the city.” These movements are at once ordinary and criminalised. Human Rights Watch (HRW, 2010) documented how India’s Border Security Force (BSF) has repeatedly used lethal force, torture, and intimidation against people in this region, treating impoverished residents and migrants as collateral damage in efforts to curb smuggling and “infiltration.” The women who cross, often at night and without papers, do so in a landscape shaped by poverty, gendered expectations, and an increasingly militarised border.

Over the past two decades, scholarship on South–South migration has highlighted a gradual feminisation of labour mobility within the subcontinent. Bangladesh, historically known for sending male migrants to the Gulf, now also sees significant numbers of women moving to India and the Middle East as domestic workers, caregivers, and low-wage employees in export-oriented sectors (Rajan, Joseph, & Narendran, 2013). India is the primary destination country within South Asia for Bangladeshi women, in part because of linguistic and cultural affinities in the borderlands and relatively cheaper migration costs compared with long-haul journeys to the Gulf. Yet these women rarely appear as subjects of policy; they surface instead as nameless “illegal migrants,” “trafficked victims,” or “Bangladeshi infiltrators” in political discourse and media narratives.

Despite abundant political attention to irregular migration from Bangladesh, the lived experiences of the women who cross remain under-researched. Debates in India fixate on numbers, security threats, and the status of “illegal Bangladeshi Muslims,” especially in Assam and other northeastern states, while the gendered dimensions of migration and border governance receive comparatively little scrutiny. This obscures how legal categories and enforcement practices produce profoundly gendered vulnerabilities. Women’s lower literacy levels, limited access to property and identity documents, and concentration in hidden forms of labour mean that they are disproportionately exposed to exploitation and to the risks created by detention and deportation (Chakraborty, 2018, 2020; Ramachandran, 2019). At the same time, women are central to how families manage risk and survival in the context of environmental change, agrarian distress, and domestic violence in Bangladesh.

This article analyzes the situation of Bangladeshi women who migrate into India from border regions, particularly from Bangladesh’s southwest and northeast. It asks three interrelated questions: What happens to these women once they cross into India? What forms of precarity, exploitation, and vulnerability structure their everyday lives? And how does India’s foreign policy and domestic legal framework regulate—or fail to regulate—this mobility, producing a gap between official commitments and realities on the ground? By centring women’s experiences, the article seeks to shift the conversation from securitized anxieties about “illegal migration” toward a rights-based understanding of cross-border movement in South Asia.

The discussion proceeds in four steps. The next section outlines the conceptual tools used—feminised migration, precarity, bordering, and crimmigration. A brief methodological note explains the article’s reliance on secondary sources. The main body then presents findings on patterns of Bangladeshi women’s migration, the production of “illegality,” everyday labour and violence, and detention and deportation practices in India. The penultimate section situates these findings within India’s foreign policy stance and citizenship politics. The article concludes by arguing that Bangladeshi migrant women occupy “bordered lives” in which they are simultaneously indispensable to India’s economy and routinely denied protection and recognition.

Conceptual and Theoretical Framework

Scholars of gender and migration emphasise that women do not simply follow men; they increasingly migrate as independent workers and decision-makers, even when their journeys are mediated by kin or brokers. Feminised migration is closely tied to the global reorganisation of care and social reproduction, in which women from poorer regions fill labour shortages in domestic work, caregiving, and low-wage service sectors. In South Asia, this has taken the form of women moving from rural Bangladesh and Nepal to urban and peri-urban spaces in India as maids, caretakers, and informal workers, often without formal contracts or legal status (Chakraborty, 2020; Rajan et al., 2013). These labour markets are characterised by intimacy and informality: the home, the field, or the brothel becomes the workplace, blurring boundaries between paid work and unpaid duties and intensifying women’s dependence on employers, husbands, and intermediaries.

The concept of precarity provides a useful lens for understanding these dynamics. Rather than a simple synonym for poverty, precarity captures the pervasive insecurity that arises when work, residence, and social recognition are unstable and revocable. For migrant women, precarity is produced at the intersection of gendered labour markets, restrictive immigration regimes, and patriarchal family structures. Irregular status—crossing without documents, overstaying visas, or lacking proof of citizenship—turns women into “deportable workers” whose livelihoods can be disrupted at any moment by a police raid, an employer’s threat to call immigration authorities, or sudden deportation. This everyday uncertainty shapes how women bargain over wages, negotiate sexual advances, and decide whether to seek help when abused.

Border studies draw attention to how borders are not merely lines on maps but ongoing processes of “bordering” that extend into interior spaces. In India, bordering is enacted not only by fences and floodlights but also by identity checks on trains, citizenship hearings in foreigner tribunals, and the presence of detention centres deep inside states such as Assam and Karnataka (Ramachandran, 2019). The convergence of immigration control and criminal law—often termed “crimmigration”—means that those suspected of being “illegal migrants” can be surveilled, arrested, and confined much like criminal offenders, even when they pose no security threat. Legal categories such as “foreigner” and “illegal migrant” become tools through which the state polices social and political boundaries, with profound consequences for those who are poor, Muslim, and female.

An intersectional perspective is crucial. Bangladeshi women who migrate to India are not a homogeneous group. Their experiences are shaped by age, marital status, religion, class, caste, and position within family hierarchies. Muslim Bangladeshi women migrating into a Hindu-majority country encounter specific forms of stigma and suspicion; young unmarried women face different pressures than older divorced or widowed migrants. At the same time, their lives are entangled with those of Indian citizens in border villages who share similar economic hardships and may also be subject to BSF abuses. Attending to these interlocking axes of power helps avoid framing Bangladeshi migrant women solely as passive victims while still recognising the structural conditions that constrain their agency (Chakraborty, 2018, 2020).

Methodology

This study is based on a qualitative synthesis of existing literature and documentary sources rather than original fieldwork. It draws on peer-reviewed scholarship on South Asian migration and gender, including work on undocumented Bangladeshi women workers in India (Chakraborty, 2018, 2020; Rajan et al., 2013), as well as reports from human rights organisations and advocacy groups. Key documents include Human Rights Watch’s (HRW, 2010) investigation of abuses by the BSF along the Bangladesh border, Global Detention Project working papers on immigration detention and crimmigration in India (Ramachandran, 2019), and more recent submissions to United Nations treaty bodies regarding the treatment of women in immigration detention (Global Detention Project [GDP], 2025). Indian government statements, relevant legislation, and policy documents were consulted to capture official perspectives.

The sources were read iteratively to identify recurring themes around drivers of migration, patterns of border crossing, labour incorporation, violence and exploitation, and the operation of detention and deportation regimes. The analysis attends to both convergences and tensions across sources: for example, where official accounts emphasise national security and sovereignty, rights-based reports document systemic abuses; where academic work highlights migrant women’s negotiated agency, advocacy documents stress victimisation. The article’s reliance on secondary data imposes important limitations. Much of the information on undocumented women and trafficking comes from small-scale studies and testimonies collected by human rights organisations, which may not be representative of all migrants. In addition, clandestine border crossings and informal labour arrangements are, by definition, difficult to document. The discussion that follows should therefore be understood as indicative rather than exhaustive, pointing to patterns that merit further empirical investigation.

Findings and Analysis

Patterns and Drivers of Bangladeshi Women’s Migration into India

Available estimates of the number of Bangladeshi nationals in India vary widely, reflecting the absence of reliable registration data and the political sensitivity of the issue. Nonetheless, both scholarly and policy analyses agree that India is the principal destination for Bangladeshi migrants within South Asia and that women constitute a significant, if undercounted, portion of these flows (Rajan et al., 2013). Women tend to originate from poorer rural districts in southwestern and northern Bangladesh, including areas affected by river erosion and salinity. After crossing into Indian territory—most commonly into West Bengal and Assam—they may remain in border districts or move onward to cities such as Kolkata, Mumbai, Delhi, and Bengaluru. Migration often unfolds in stages, with initial crossings to nearby towns followed by internal movement within India.

Economic precarity is a central driver. In many sending regions, agriculture has become increasingly fragile due to land fragmentation, declining soil quality, and recurrent flooding. Riverbank erosion along major rivers such as the Padma and the Jamuna has displaced entire communities, creating landless households that depend on casual wage labour and remittances. Women in such households frequently have few local options beyond low-paid agricultural work or home-based piecework. Migration to India, even in an irregular fashion, can appear less risky than remaining in place with no income. Prospects of earning in Indian rupees, which carry greater purchasing power back home, and of diversifying family livelihoods motivate many women to move despite awareness of possible dangers.

The decision to migrate is also shaped by gendered expectations and constraints. Some women leave violent or abusive marriages, seeing cross-border migration as a way to regain autonomy or support natal families. Others move as part of broader household strategies in which daughters and daughters-in-law are sent to work as domestics, factory workers, or in some cases in “marriages” arranged across the border that collapse into exploitation. Brokers—known locally by various terms—play a pivotal role in organising these journeys. They arrange transport, negotiate with border guards or smugglers, and connect women to employers or brothel madams. In some cases, brokers are relatives or trusted community members; in others, they are part of trafficking networks that deceive or coerce women into sex work or other forms of forced labour (Chakraborty, 2018; HRW, 2010). The boundary between voluntary migration and trafficking is therefore porous, especially when economic desperation and gendered subordination limit women’s choices.

Producing “Illegal” Women: Borders, Documents, and Legal Status

The India–Bangladesh border is one of the most densely populated international frontiers in the world. It cuts through villages, bisects fields, and in some places runs along river channels that shift over time, making the line itself fluid in everyday life. To manage cross-border movement, India has deployed the BSF and constructed a long barbed-wire fence, accompanied by floodlights and watchtowers. Human Rights Watch’s (2010) investigation documented a pattern of indiscriminate firing, torture, and beatings by BSF personnel against both Indian and Bangladeshi residents near the border, often on mere suspicion of smuggling or illegal crossing. Women and children, including those simply tending fields or attempting to visit relatives, have been among the victims. Such practices send a clear message that irregular movement is not only unlawful but dangerous, reinforcing a climate of fear.

Legally, Bangladeshi nationals who enter India without valid passports or who overstay visas are governed by the Foreigners Act of 1946 and the Passport (Entry into India) Act of 1920. These statutes grant wide discretionary powers to authorities to arrest, detain, and deport “foreigners,” with limited procedural safeguards. Subsequent reforms to India’s citizenship regime have hardened this framework. The 2003 amendments to the Citizenship Act introduced the category of “illegal migrant,” excluding such persons from pathways to citizenship. More recently, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 2019 (CAA) created an expedited route to citizenship for certain non-Muslim migrants from neighbouring countries, explicitly excluding Muslims, the majority of Bangladeshi migrants (Dixit, 2021). In Assam, the updating of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) has further heightened anxieties by requiring residents to prove ancestral links with documentary evidence, failing which they may be declared foreigners.

These legal and administrative processes have gendered effects. Women across South Asia are less likely than men to possess land titles, formal employment records, or independent identity documents, as such papers are often issued in the names of male family members. Bangladeshi women who cross into India irregularly, or who lack documentary proof of their own citizenship in Assam, face particular difficulties in demonstrating lawful residence or defending themselves in foreigner tribunals. Those who are picked up in raids or at checkpoints may be treated as “illegal migrants” even when they have lived in India for years and have Indian-born children. The spectre of detection and deportation encourages women to avoid contact with state institutions, limiting their access to police protection, health care, and social services. Employers and abusive partners can exploit this fear, threatening to report women to the authorities if they resist exploitation or attempt to leave.

Everyday Precarity: Labour, Exploitation, and Gendered Violence

Once in India, Bangladeshi women commonly find work in domestic service. In cities such as Kolkata and Delhi, they clean, cook, care for children and the elderly, and perform other intimate tasks in middle-class households. Domestic work is largely unregulated, and when performed by undocumented migrants it is doubly informal. Wages may be lower than those of Indian-born workers, hours longer, and dismissal easier. Live-in arrangements can isolate women from supportive networks, leaving them wholly dependent on employers for food, shelter, and protection. Testimonies collected by human rights groups describe cases of verbal abuse, confinement within homes, non-payment of wages, and sexual harassment or assault by male employers or relatives. For women with no legal status, the threat that employers will contact the police or immigration authorities is a powerful deterrent against reporting abuse.

Another significant, though numerically smaller, group of Bangladeshi women in India are involved in sex work. Some migrate knowingly to work in brothel areas in cities such as Kolkata, Mumbai, and Pune, motivated by the possibility of higher earnings than available in rural Bangladesh. Others are trafficked through deception, coercion, or sale by family members or husbands. Chakraborty’s (2018) work on undocumented Bangladeshi women documents how poverty, gender- based violence, and restrictive social norms at home make women vulnerable to promises of marriage or legitimate employment that end in debt bondage and brothel-based work. Within India, police and local authorities often treat Bangladeshi women in sex work primarily as “illegal migrants” or “immoral women,” subjecting them to raids and detention rather than recognising them as rights-holders or potential trafficking survivors. This conflation of migration control with moral policing renders women particularly exposed to extortion and sexual violence by officials.

Beyond domestic and sexual labour, Bangladeshi women participate in a range of informal economic activities. In border districts, they work in agriculture, small-scale trading, and cross-border petty smuggling, moving goods such as food grains, textiles, or medicine across the fence. In urban and peri-urban areas, some seek employment in brick kilns, construction sites,

small factories, and informal workshops. These sectors are characterised by hazardous conditions, lack of safety equipment, and the absence of written contracts. Wage theft and arbitrary deductions are frequent complaints. For undocumented women, the ability to contest such practices through formal channels is limited, as approaching labour courts or state welfare offices risks exposing their immigration status. In practice, they rely on informal negotiations, support from co-workers, or the mediation of community leaders, which may or may not produce fair outcomes.

Social stigma compounds economic vulnerability. In both Bangladesh and India, women who cross borders without male guardians, work in strangers’ homes, or engage in sex work face moral scrutiny and blame for perceived transgressions of gender norms. Some become estranged from natal families or communities, especially if rumours circulate about their work. Yet ethnographic accounts also show that many women frame migration as a strategy of empowerment and survival (Chakraborty, 2020). Earnings from domestic work or other informal jobs can fund siblings’ education, pay off family debts, or finance land purchases in Bangladesh. Migrant women forge friendships with other workers, share information about better employers, and sometimes support each other in resisting abuse. Their agency is, however, constantly constrained by the structural conditions of illegality, patriarchy, and economic inequality.

Detention, Deportation, and the Carceral Border

When Bangladeshi women are apprehended by Indian authorities—whether at the border, during workplace raids, or through police checks in cities—they may be charged under the Foreigners Act, the Passport Act, or state-level criminal provisions. Many are then confined in immigration detention centres, which are often housed within or adjacent to ordinary prisons. Ramachandran’s (2019) analysis of India’s crimmigration regime highlights how immigration detention has expanded in states such as Assam, where declared foreigners are held for prolonged periods, sometimes years, pending deportation. Joint submissions to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women describe inadequate living conditions in these facilities, lack of gender-sensitive services, and limited access to legal aid (GDP, 2025). For women, detention can mean separation from children, interruption of medical treatment, and heightened exposure to harassment by guards or fellow detainees.

Deportation practices further illustrate the punitive character of India’s approach to Bangladeshi migrants. Human rights organisations have documented mass deportation drives in which groups of Bangladeshi nationals, including women and children, are rounded up from urban areas and border districts and handed over to Bangladeshi authorities at designated border points, sometimes without meaningful individual assessment or access to asylum procedures. Recent media reports describe “stealth pushbacks,” in which police move migrants to the border and compel them to cross into Bangladesh without formal handover, circumventing even minimal procedural safeguards. These practices blur the distinction between deportation and expulsion, raising serious concerns about refoulement and the collective punishment of migrants who may have lived in India for extended periods.

The gendered consequences of detention and deportation extend beyond the immediate period of confinement or removal. Women who are deported may face stigma and suspicion in their home communities, where migration to India is sometimes associated with sex work or moral transgression. They may return to households that remain indebted to brokers or husbands who financed their journeys. Some are at risk of being retrafficked, particularly if they are deported to border towns with limited support services. Others attempt to re-enter India, perpetuating cycles of irregular movement, exploitation, and punishment. Children caught up in these processes—especially those born in India to Bangladeshi mothers—may find themselves de facto stateless, with weak or contested ties to either country. The carceral border thus produces long-term social fragmentation that is felt most acutely by women and their families.

India’s Foreign Policy Stance and the Policy–Practice Gap

India’s foreign policy discourse on Bangladesh has long been framed by concerns about security, territorial integrity, and river-water sharing. Official statements emphasise the need for cooperation to combat cross-border terrorism, trafficking, and “illegal migration.” Bilateral instruments, including joint working groups and border management agreements, commit both countries to preventing irregular crossings and facilitating the return of each other’s nationals. In public fora, Indian officials frequently portray India as a generous neighbour that has absorbed refugees and migrants from the region, while underscoring the burden that unregulated movement supposedly imposes on local populations and infrastructure. These narratives rarely disaggregate migrants by gender or acknowledge the specific vulnerabilities of women workers.

Domestic politics amplify these securitized frames. In states such as Assam, West Bengal, and Tripura, electoral campaigns have repeatedly mobilised the figure of the “illegal Bangladeshi Muslim” as a demographic and cultural threat. The CAA and the NRC process in Assam are best understood against this backdrop. While formally presented as measures to identify foreigners and provide refuge to persecuted non-Muslim minorities, critics have argued that these initiatives create hierarchies of belonging that are deeply intertwined with religious identity and ethnic anxieties (Dixit, 2021). Bangladeshi women, especially Muslims, become caught in the crossfire of these politics: they are portrayed as bearers of excessive fertility or as vectors of cultural change, even as their labour is quietly absorbed into households and informal economies.

This political and diplomatic framing sits uneasily with India’s international commitments. India is party to core human rights instruments including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, both of which impose obligations to protect women and children from violence, exploitation, and arbitrary detention. In multilateral forums, India often highlights its achievements in promoting girls’ education, women’s political representation, and gender-sensitive development. Yet the treatment of Bangladeshi migrant women at its borders and in its detention centres, as documented by HRW (2010), Ramachandran (2019), and subsequent NGO submissions (GDP, 2025), reveals persistent gaps between rhetoric and practice. Migrant women’s rights are subordinated to security logics, and their voices are largely absent from policy-making processes that directly shape their lives.

Discussion

The analysis above suggests that Bangladeshi women’s migration to India cannot be understood simply as a matter of individual choice or criminal conduct. It is embedded in wider transformations of the South Asian political economy, including agrarian distress, climate-related displacement, and the growing demand for cheap feminised labour in urban and peri-urban spaces. At the same time, the militarisation of the India–Bangladesh border and the expansion of crimmigration practices have reconfigured the terms on which such mobility is possible. Women’s journeys are routed through increasingly dangerous border zones where they risk violence from state and non-state actors alike. Once in India, they inhabit a legal grey zone in which they can be tolerated as workers but expelled as “illegal migrants” at any time. These dynamics exemplify how borders produce “bordered lives”: forms of existence that are contingent, precarious, and subject to abrupt interruption.

Precarity in this context is not accidental but structurally produced. Legal categories such as “foreigner” and “illegal migrant” do more than describe status; they actively shape access to work, housing, health care, and justice. For Bangladeshi women, irregularity intersects with gendered norms that devalue care work and invisibilise domestic and sexual labour. Employers who rely on migrant domestics gain from their inability to claim labour rights, while traffickers and brothel managers profit from women’s limited options and fear of the authorities. Border agencies, in turn, may justify abusive practices as necessary to protect national security or curb smuggling, even when victims are unarmed villagers or low-level couriers. In this sense, precarity is useful to multiple actors: it sustains economic arrangements and political narratives that hinge on the availability of cheap, expendable labour.

Yet Bangladeshi migrant women are not only acted upon; they also exercise agency within constrained structures. Studies of undocumented women workers in India document strategies of negotiation, solidarity, and everyday resistance (Chakraborty, 2018, 2020). Women share information about safer crossing routes, better employers, and supportive non-governmental organisations. They pool savings, send remittances, and invest in housing or education in Bangladesh. Some use the threat of leaving or of exposing employers’ abuses to secure marginally better terms. Others engage in quiet acts of refusal, such as limiting unpaid work or seeking alternative employment. Recognising these forms of negotiated agency complicates simplistic narratives of victimhood without obscuring the asymmetries of power that migrants face. Agency, in this account, is not the absence of constraint but the capacity to manoeuvre within and against it.

The tension between India’s foreign policy stance and the realities documented here has broader regional implications. As South Asian states grapple with mobility shaped by climate change, economic inequality, and political conflict, there is a risk that securitized approaches will deepen rather than alleviate vulnerability. Treating Bangladeshi women primarily as security threats or demographic burdens undermines possibilities for cooperative, gender-sensitive migration governance. A more constructive approach would recognise the structural drivers of cross-border labour mobility, acknowledge women’s contributions to both sending and receiving economies, and design legal pathways that reduce reliance on brokers and smugglers. It would also require investment in protection systems—labour inspection, shelters, and legal aid—that extend to migrants regardless of status. Without such measures, the cycle of irregular movement, exploitation, and punitive control is likely to persist.

Conclusion and Policy Implications

This article has examined the situation of Bangladeshi women who migrate into India from border regions, focusing on what happens to them after crossing, the vulnerabilities they face, and the relationship between India’s policy framework and ground realities. It has shown that Bangladeshi women’s mobility is driven by a combination of economic hardship, environmental pressures, and gendered constraints and aspirations. Once in India, many find work in sectors that rely on informality and invisibility—domestic service, agriculture, construction, petty trade, and sex work—where irregular status and patriarchal norms expose them to exploitation and violence. At the same time, as India has tightened its border regime and reconfigured its citizenship laws, migrant women have become increasingly entangled in a crimmigration apparatus that treats them as criminals or security threats rather than as workers and rights-holders.

Addressing these dynamics requires rethinking both border governance and labour regulation. At minimum, India should ensure that its border management practices comply with international human rights standards. This includes prohibiting excessive use of force by the BSF, establishing independent mechanisms to investigate abuses, and providing effective remedies to victims (HRW, 2010). Immigration detention should be used only as a measure of last resort, with particular safeguards for women and children, and alternatives such as community-based supervision should be preferred (Ramachandran, 2019; GDP, 2025). Regularisation schemes or cross-border labour agreements could create safer legal avenues for Bangladeshi women who already sustain Indian households and economies. Within India, extending labour protections to domestic workers and informal workers, regardless of nationality, would help to reduce exploitation and shift the burden of regulation from punitive immigration control to workplace rights.

More broadly, India’s foreign policy and citizenship debates need to move beyond securitized framings of “illegal migration” to engage seriously with the structural forces that drive women to move and the contributions they make once they do. This entails engaging Bangladeshi authorities, local governments, women’s organisations, and migrant workers themselves in designing policies that are both realistic and rights-based. Such an approach would not eliminate all risks associated with cross-border migration in a deeply unequal region. It would, however, acknowledge that Bangladeshi migrant women are not aberrations to be fenced out or expelled but integral participants in the social and economic life of the borderlands and the Indian cities they help sustain. Recognising and protecting their rights is not only a legal and moral imperative; it is also essential to building a more just and stable regional order in which borders no longer condemn women to lives of perpetual precarity.

References

• Chakraborty, A. (2018). Renegotiating boundaries: Exploring lives of undocumented Bangladeshi women workers in India. In R. Jones & A. Ferdoush (Eds.), BordersandmobilityinSouthAsiaandbeyond. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
• Chakraborty, A. (2020). Negotiated agency amidst overlapping vulnerabilities of women migrant workers in South Asia.
• Sociological Bulletin, 69(1–2), 1–20.
• Dixit, P. (2021). The citizenship debate in India: Securing citizenship for the stateless (SSRN Working Paper No. 3819159). Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3819159
• Global Detention Project. (2025). India: Joint submission to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
• Human Rights Watch. (2010). “Triggerhappy”:ExcessiveuseofforcebyIndiantroopsattheBangladeshborder. New York, NY: Author.
• Ramachandran, S. (2019). The contours of crimmigration control in India (Global Detention Project Working Paper No. 25). Geneva, Switzerland: Global Detention Project.
• Rajan, S. I., Joseph, T., & Narendran, V. (2013). Neitherherenorthere:AnoverviewofSouth–Southmigrationfromahuman rights perspective. The Hague, The Netherlands: International Institute of Social Studies.