On November 12, in the midst of the heated campaign for the Maharashtra assembly election, Bharatiya Janata Party leader Amit Malviya claimed on X that “illegal immigration from Bangladesh and Myanmar is changing and reshaping Mumbai’s political and socio-economic landscape”. As evidence of this, he provided the link to a news story about a study about immigration in the state capital by the reputed Tata Institute of Social Sciences.
Three days earlier, BJP leader Kirit Somaiya also invoked the TISS study to underscore Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s latest slogan, “Ek hai toh safe hai”, if we are one, we are safe – which many interpreted as calling for Hindus to band together while voting. Somaiya argued that the study showed that the BJP’s concerns about immigration and changing demographics were well founded.
However, experts have said that the study is opaque and vague, even as they questioned both its methodology and findings.
The study, titled “Illegal immigrants to Mumbai: analysing socio-economic and political consequences” is by TISS pro vice chancellor Shankar Das, who is also the dean of the School of Health Systems Studies, and Souvik Mondal, an assistant professor in the same school. It had been presented at a seminar in the institute on November 5.
A 74-slide presentation that the authors prepared for the seminar says that the aim of the study was “to examine the socio-economic consequences and the process of illegal Bangladeshi and Rohingya immigrants to Mumbai”. Among the questions it sought to explore were “the impact of illegal immigrants on the demographic landscape and sustainable development of Mumbai” and “the economic and social challenges to local residents of Mumbai due to illegal immigrants”.
However, the study is still incomplete – the seminar was based on an “interim report”. Mondal shared an executive summary of the study with Scroll, while another academic shared the presentation that the authors used for the seminar.
In this presentation, which contains several typographical errors, the authors state that while their intended sample size was around 3,000, they had thus far only “taken a total of 300 samples”.
Media reports about the research appeared after the seminar, citing findings from the “118-page interim report”. One stated, “Several projections for 2051 estimate that Hindus could fall below 54 percent, with the Muslim population rising to approximately 30 percent”.
In fact, the executive summary makes a different claim, stating that by that year, “the rise in Muslim population will be approximately 30%”.
Scroll emailed and messaged the authors, seeking a copy of the 118-page report. Das did not respond. Mondal stated that he was away from Mumbai and could only access the report when he was back in the city.
Vignesh Rajahmani, a researcher based in London, observed that the executive summary gave no description of the dataset that had been collected for the study, though the accompanying presentation does so. “This omission is an oddity,” Rajahmani said.
Academics to whom Scroll spoke noted that even for executive summaries and presentations, basic principles of research and academic publication, such as the disclosure of data sources, must be adhered to.
The summary and presentation’s failure to comply with such standards in numerous instances raised serious questions about the quality of the methodology and its findings, experts said, particularly given its highly contentious subject.
“This report sets an extremely bad precedent,” said a former student of TISS who is now a human rights researcher, and asked to remain anonymous because their current employer had not authorised them to speak to the media. Current staff at TISS that Scroll spoke to expressed displeasure at the study, but declined to comment because they feared consequences from the institution.
The researcher argued that the report should be withdrawn, and that an independent body should review it, given its many flaws. “One can make out easily that there is political motivation behind this report,” they said. “This is a stain on TISS’s rich legacy.”
Scroll sought responses from the report’s authors about these criticisms against the report. This article will be updated if they respond.
Unclear, inconsistent language and claims
The researchers conducted their study across seven zones in Mumbai, and examined six clusters in each zone. The presentation states that they adopted both quantitative and qualitative methods, including “structured surveys” as well as “in-depth interviews” and “FGDs” or focus-group discussions.
Further, “key informant interviews” were conducted to obtain “in-depth insights and also to gain information about the cluster of people who are to be approached”. In a slide on “analytical techniques”, the document states that the study used quantitative data “to identify general trends” and then explored those trends “through qualitative data for deeper understanding”.
But the human rights researcher noted that the language used in the executive summary and presentation was “inconsistent and tentative”.
At several points, for instance, the presentation states that the study “will” entail certain processes: for instance, that “the sampling process will utilize stratified random sampling”. As a consequence, the researcher said, “It isn’t clear if the study has already been done or if it is being proposed.”
Further, several assertions and observations appeared arbitrary. In one instance, the presentation contains a graph purporting to show the projected change in the population of Hindus and Muslims in Mumbai between 1951 and 2051. Below the graph, where data sources are typically provided, the document notes: “Source: Author’s calculation”.
“This is unheard of,” the researcher said. “There must be empirical data and analysis provided in the study, it cannot merely state that it is the author’s calculation. They must mention how they got to that number.”
Lack of transparency
The human rights researcher also noted that in line with conventions of transparency in academia, a report, as well as associated materials, such as presentation slides and summaries, must declare the names of commissioning and funding agencies, whose logos are typically displayed in these materials.
Authors are also expected to disclose information about prior academic work that they have referred to and seek to build on, as part of their literature review. “The researcher has to have a section where they mention what other research has already been done and then explain why they have chosen this type of research to pursue,” the human rights researcher said.
In the terminology it deploys, too, the documents appear vastly at odds with accepted human rights’ parlance, the researcher noted, citing the example of the use of the term “illegal immigrants”. Such terms “dehumanise people”, the researcher said. “You cannot refer to people as ‘illegal’. The report fundamentally violates all principles of human rights and social justice.”
Rather, they explained, “From the human rights perspectives, people who cross the borders are displaced, or refugees or migrants. They cannot be categorised as ‘illegal.’”
They noted that the presentation made repeated, unscientific references to links between illegal migration and crime. For instance, it stated, “Illegal migration is often associated with criminal activities like drug trafficking and smuggling, posing public safety risks and contributing to organized crime networks in Mumbai.” It also claimed, “Engaging in illegal activities leads migrants to form connections with organized crime groups, contributing to anti-social behavior and disrupting public order.”
But the human rights researcher argued that the document gave no explanation of how it had arrived at these conclusions.
Rajahmani also pointed out that there were major lacunae in the report’s claims and arguments. The executive summary notes, for instance, “The influx of illegal immigrants stirs accusations of ‘vote-bank politics,’ with forged documents enabling illegal participation in elections, undermining democratic integrity.”
He observed, “It is unclear how ‘illegal immigrants’ could participate in voting processes. The report does not provide definitions of illegality or specify who is considered an illegal immigrant.”
Further, the report does not explain how the research concludes a particular individual is an illegal immigrant. “How was it determined that a person is illegal?” Rajahmani said. “Since individuals are unlikely to self-identify as illegal immigrants, was there involvement from law enforcement or judicial bodies? Were identity documents such as passports checked? Was there any cross-verification?”
He noted that “if there are concerns about illegal migrants with fake documentation, this is a border issue involving the Union government. The Election Commission of India and the Union government are responsible for issuing voter identity cards and passports. These aren’t issued by the state, and over the years the systems in place by the Union Government are quite robust.”
Unusual timing
Experts also criticised the release of findings at an interim stage, when only 10% of the sample size had been surveyed. A TISS staffer noted that it was not typical for findings to be presented at such a stage, and that usually, “interim reports were only produced to be presented to funders or advisory committees and not presented to the public”.
TISS’s institutional review board reviews, approves and monitors all research proposals involving human participants. According to the institution’s website, the review board aims to “safeguard the dignity, rights, safety and well-being of all actual and potential research participants”. The web page of the review board contains status reports of “projects between 2018-2022”. The illegal immigration project is not mentioned in this list.
TISS’s 2022-’23 annual report lists all projects that departments are undertaking and their current positions – such as whether they have been initiated, are ongoing or at the stage where the authors are writing the report. However, in the 2022-’23 report, the section pertaining to the School of Health Systems Studies contains no mention of the illegal immigration project. Scroll asked the authors when the study was conducted and why it was not mentioned in the web page of the review board, or in the annual report. They had not responded by the time this article was published.
Rajahmani, too, expressed surprise at the presentation of an interim study and an executive summary. “An executive summary is usually the final part of the research process,” he said. “And an interim report is usually released only after all analysis and fieldwork are completed, when only the report writing along with the broader context and implications is the remaining task in hand.”
The human rights researcher agreed. “Now political leaders are referring to it as a fact-finding report and an investigative report and the merits of the research is not being questioned,” the person said.
Limited-time offer: Big stories, small price. Keep independent media alive. Become a Scroll member today!
Our journalism is for everyone. But you can get special privileges by buying an annual Scroll Membership. Sign up today!