Identity Checks, Migration, and State Security

Analyses India’s migration identity checks, balancing border security, demographic stability, and fairness in the Indo-Bangladesh context.

Recent debates in India about the harassment of Bengali migrant workers have drawn public attention to the sensitive question of national identity. In Swatahsiddha Sarkar’s article “Hyphenated Nationality and the Paradox of the Nation State” (The Hindu, August 13, 2025), the case of Bengali-speaking workers suspected of being illegal migrants from Bangladesh is presented as part of a wider, long-standing structural paradox within the nation-state. The article suggests that such suspicion reflects deep-rooted exclusionary logic rather than simple political manoeuvring. However, another perspective – the counterview – argues that identity verification and migration control are legitimate and necessary state responsibilities. From this angle, the suspicion directed at Bengali workers is not inherently discriminatory, but rather a response to genuine concerns about illegal migration, national security, and demographic balance.

The State’s Duty to Protect Borders and Citizens

Every state is tasked with maintaining internal order, protecting its citizens, and ensuring the integrity of its borders. In the Westphalian model of the nation-state, sovereignty includes the right – and duty – to decide who may enter and remain within the territory. Sarkar’s account highlights the paradox: states depend on diversity for cultural and economic vitality, yet also need a degree of homogeneity for unity. From the counterview’s standpoint, however, the existence of this paradox does not negate the need for secure and regulated migration.

Joseph Carens, while famously advocating for open borders, recognises in The Ethics of Immigration that even within the “Conventional View” – the belief that states may control immigration – certain restrictions are morally acceptable when based on legitimate state interests. These include protecting the population from genuine security threats and ensuring fair management of limited resources. Thus, even liberal theorists concede that completely unrestricted migration may be impractical in the current global system.

Migration as a Security Concern

Didier Bigo’s concept of the “governmentality of unease” explains why migration is often treated as a security issue. Bigo notes that migration control is not simply about responding to random fears, but is tied to the structural logic of the state, where territorial integrity is central to political legitimacy. Security professionals – from police to immigration officials – see the protection of borders as part of their core mandate. This perspective is reinforced by public expectations, especially when migration is linked in political discourse to crime, unemployment, or instability.

In South Asia, cross-border migration can have complex consequences. Borders with long histories of porous movement – such as the Indo-Bangladesh border – pose specific challenges. The presence of large undocumented populations can strain public services, alter local demographics, and generate political tensions. From the counterview, identity verification is not an arbitrary act of exclusion but a measure to ensure that those who benefit from the state’s resources and protections are those legally entitled to do so.

Learning from Policy Failures Elsewhere

Douglas Massey’s work on U.S. immigration policy offers a cautionary tale about mismatches between migration realities and policy responses. Massey shows how poorly designed controls – such as ending circular migration without offering legal pathways – can backfire, increasing undocumented populations instead of reducing them. The lesson for India and other countries is that border enforcement must be strategic, informed, and accompanied by workable legal channels for entry.

The counterview thus supports identity checks and enforcement, but stresses that these should be guided by accurate data and realistic assessments of migration patterns. Otherwise, as in the U.S., policies risk creating unintended consequences – for example, pushing seasonal migrants into permanent settlement because returning home becomes too risky.

Ethical Legitimacy of Identity Verification

Critics argue that identity verification can slip into discrimination, especially when language, appearance, or religion are used as crude proxies for nationality. This concern is valid. However, Carens’s discussion of the “Conventional View” reminds us that states, even when exercising their right to control immigration, must do so under principles of fairness and non-discrimination.

Under this standard, identity checks are ethically acceptable if they are based on objective criteria – such as verified documentation – and not on stereotypes. Furthermore, they should be applied consistently, without singling out groups solely because of their ethnicity or language. In practice, this means investing in robust, transparent systems for civil registration, residency permits, and work authorisations.

Balancing Security and Rights

The core challenge for the counterview is ensuring that migration control does not become a blanket justification for exclusion. Bigo warns that the securitisation of migration can be politically exploited, turning migrants into “outsiders inside the state” even when they are lawfully present. This is where safeguards must come in: judicial oversight, clear appeal processes, and independent review of deportation cases.

From a policy standpoint, legitimate identity verification requires:

• Clarity in criteria for legal residence and citizenship.
• Non-discriminatory application of checks.
• Protection of basic rights regardless of status, especially in cases involving humanitarian need.

These measures protect both the integrity of the state and the dignity of individuals.

The Special Case of the Indo-Bangladesh Context

India’s situation with Bengali-speaking populations is unique. Historical migration flows, shared cultural heritage, and the political legacy of Partition mean that language alone cannot be a reliable indicator of nationality. However, it is also true that illegal migration from Bangladesh has been a documented reality, with implications for land use, labour markets, and electoral politics.

From the counterview, this is precisely why identity verification is necessary – to distinguish between Indian citizens, legal residents, and undocumented entrants. This distinction protects legitimate migrants and citizens from being unfairly lumped together with unauthorised migrants, while also addressing local anxieties about demographic change.

Avoiding the Pitfalls of Overreach

One lesson from Massey’s research is that overly harsh enforcement can push migrant communities into hiding, undermining both integration and security. If Bengali workers fear indiscriminate targeting, they may avoid contact with authorities even when victimised by crime or exploitation. This creates a paradox where excessive enforcement actually decreases the state’s ability to maintain public order.

Therefore, the counterview’s defence of identity verification comes with a warning: it must be precise, proportionate, and part of a broader migration management strategy that includes legal avenues for entry and regularisation.

Conclusion: Legitimacy through Proportionality

The counterview is not a defence of arbitrary exclusion or ethnic profiling. Rather, it asserts that states have a legitimate, even necessary, duty to verify identities and manage migration flows in the interests of security, demographic stability, and social cohesion. Drawing on Bigo, we see that securitisation is a deeply embedded state function; from Massey, that poorly designed enforcement can backfire; and from Carens, that migration control, when accepted under the Conventional View, must still be guided by fairness and non-discrimination.

In the case of Bengali workers in India, suspicion is not inherently evidence of systemic discrimination – though it can become so if checks are misapplied. Properly implemented, identity verification can protect both national interests and the rights of individuals. In this way, the state can fulfil its dual responsibility: safeguarding its borders while upholding the values of justice and equality.

Subscribe to our Youtube Channel for more Valuable Content – TheStudyias

Download the App to Subscribe to our Courses – Thestudyias

The Source’s Authority and Ownership of the Article is Claimed By THE STUDY IAS BY MANIKANT SINGH