Freedom, Justice and Equality ‒ Academics Reject the TISS Migration Survey!
19 November 2024
We, a group of academics, researchers, activists, and members of the public, committed to ethical research and constitutional values, are greatly disturbed by the recently released study led by TISS academics titled "Illegal Immigrants to Mumbai: Analysing Socio-economic and Political Consequences" as we find it compromising with all principles of academic integrity.
The release of this incomplete and heavily biased interim report of an unethical ‘study,’ coinciding strategically with Maharashtra Assembly elections, is not an academic exercise but a calculated act of political interference. It is a deliberate attempt to polarise the electorate, vilify marginalised communities, and incite violence against migrants in Mumbai. Such conduct from academics is a betrayal of the foundational ethics of teaching and scholarship. By reducing their role in knowledge production to being tools of divisive ideologies, the academics associated with this ‘study’ have brought shame to the teachers and academics.
The study’s methodological and ethical flaws are egregious. Based on a sample of just 300 participants out of a planned 3,000, it offers sweeping conclusions about entire communities particularly Muslim migrants in Mumbai, who are framed as Bangladeshi and Rohingya. In this ‘study’ these groups are then targeted, dehumanised, and criminalised, portrayed as threats to national security, social stability, and economic well-being. Without providing any credible evidence, the report links these migrants to terrorism, smuggling, and organised crime, further embedding dangerous stereotypes that fuel hatred. Such a framing is not only methodologically unsound but constitutes a direct assault on the dignity and rights of vulnerable populations.
What is especially alarming is the timing and context of the study’s release. By ‘releasing’ the ‘findings’ of this incomplete report in high-profile forums just before elections, the academics who appeared in these events too agreed to corroborate the weaponisation of academic spaces, positions and resources to create communal divisions. The study does not seek to put a alternative view in public discourse; rather, it clearly aims to serve as a tool for perpetuating xenophobic narratives, stoking fears of "Islamization," and justifying the exclusion of migrants from basic human rights. In doing so, it moves beyond academic negligence into the realm of incitement to violence against minorities and poor migrants, contributing to an atmosphere of hostility that places real lives at risk.
It has been designed with underlying assumptions which flagrantly violate the principles of human rights and ethics in research, but also lacks basic methodological rigour.
The study begins with the assumption that "illegal immigrants lead to devastation" through activities like smuggling, drug trafficking, and terrorism. This sensationalist framing of migration is far from academic and reflects a bias that led the researchers to conclude a direct causal link between immigration and crime, resource strain, and demographic instability without offering substantiated evidence.
We are deeply pained at having to point out to our fellow academics that Human Rights are universal, and no human beings are illegal. The problem with this ‘study’ begins with the very premise with which the researchers began which is to study ‘illegal’ migrants. This negates that migration is a phenomenon that is attributable to multiple and complex factors. Even if the study had wished to focus on refugees and those who entered India without proper documentations it might have chosen a less xenophobic framing.
But equally regrettable is the fact that the data itself shows that the proportion in population of international migrants is very low and most of the migration to Mumbai is internal migration (intra-state and inter-state), which is not illegal. ‘Illegal’ immigration to Mumbai therefore has not been a source of increase in proportion of Muslims. And all the so-called impacts of illegal migration are also plain assertions based on preconceived notions and not emerging from the data.
There is no definition in the study shared with the readers how the study defines an illegal migrant. Who is a migrant and an illegal migrant is not clear from the study. Within the limited sample of 300 based on place of last residence 182 are from West Bengal, 30 from Assam, 33 Bihar, 10 from Nepal, 20 from Bangladesh and so on. Then suddenly we are told that 97 % out of these are Muslims and illegal migrants. When 20 are from Bangladesh then how come 120 say that they wish to go back to Bangladesh, as reported in the later part of the study?
The researchers have chosen to release the findings based on 10% of their planned a sample size of 300 respondents for quantitative analysis. In a city of 22 million people this is grossly insufficient to draw sweeping generalised conclusions about illegal immigration in Mumbai. While they claim having done stratified random sampling, the selection of a few clusters is unjustifiable. The logic behind the blatantly inconsistent and biased sampling of these zones and how they represent the migrant population is not explained. The study generalises 97.56% of respondents as Muslim migrants. No information is provided on sub-categorisation or how migration motivations vary within the "Muslim migrant" category.
The sample design mentions that the sample size will be more than 3000 (7 zones, 6 classes, 71 from each cluster). 300 samples have been done so far and the study has announced its findings. Out of 300 only 7 are Hindus. Does this proportion match with any secondary data proportions of religious demographics in the city of Mumbai? Are there 7% Hindus in Mumbai, or do we have 7% Hindus amongst Migrants; or 7% amongst them are illegal migrants (however defined). No robustness’ check is possible from the findings of this study by comparing it with the census or government-based projections. Simply, the proportions claimed in the sample do not corroborate with any actual demographic proportions.
It uses highly inappropriate and inconsistent data visualisation. Complex issues like migration trends are represented through simplistic bar graphs and tables without meaningful contextualisation. Several graphs (e.g., population growth of Hindus and Muslims, settlement patterns) lack error margins or confidence intervals, which are critical for showing projection reliability. Diagrams like the "Vicious Cycle of Crime" rely on anecdotal assumptions rather than data-driven relationships. The link between illegal entry and terrorism is speculative and unsupported. The ‘study’ states that remittances reduce tax revenues for India and strain the economy without evidence or quantification. No data is provided about how much money is being remitted and what percentage of migrants are able to remit any of their earnings.
The ARIMA model projections (e.g., population by religion up to 2051) lack detailed methodological exposition on parameter selection, validation, or underlying assumptions. How were the projections verified against historical trends or alternative models? The absence of sensitivity analysis for projections raises doubts about their robustness.
No information is provided by the researchers about their survey tool. Since the assumptions of the ‘study’ are biased what kind of questions were put to the respondents. For example, were respondents asked about their criminal behavior or ideology? How were the undocumented migrants convinced to participate? Did this process ensure unbiased responses? Even the references used in the study include politically charged and non-peer-reviewed sources like news articles, which undermine academic rigor.
The ‘study’ is a prime example of right-wing demographic alarmism and communal bias, which always first makes dubious claims of changes in religious composition and then imply that these inherently lead to instability or threats to social cohesion. The stereotypical portrayal of migrants as ‘illegal’ with fixed motivations (e.g., ideology-driven immigration, resource exploitation) is another red-flag of this tendency. The ‘study’ assumes that migrants universally strain public resources and compete unfairly in the labour market. This ignores potential contributions of migrants, such as filling labour gaps, supporting economic growth, or what they bring to the enriching cultural diversity.
The ‘study’ clearly pushes BJP’s narrative on vote bank politics which holds that political support for migrants is universally manipulative and detrimental to democracy is reductive. It dismisses the possibility of legitimate political advocacy for migrants' rights or integration efforts.
Media reports have suggested that the lead researchers in this ‘study’ did not have necessary approvals of board of research and ethical bodies in TISS and failed to follow administrative procedure in reporting the submission of the ‘study’ proposal and funding received. They must issue a public disclosure on the bodies that supported and funded this study and explain why this was not reported in the annual reports and other regular reporting instruments, if they wish to counter the charge that this study is deeply implicated in electoral polarisiation.
This ‘study’ is a deceitful attempt at attaching the notion of ‘illegality’ to anti-Muslim prejudice for electoral polarisation. The academics who associated themselves with this study have chosen to provide a respectable garb to this pretence of a 'study' to rationalize xenophobia. So far, the Hindu right-wing had been threatening and even unleashing violence in intellectual space and getting away with criminal impunity. We see the ‘seminars’ held in TISS and JNU to discuss this ‘study’ as further display of unbridled impunity in academic spaces in which officials and individuals flex their association with right-wing organisations with a belief that they can get away with anything.
This report is not merely flawed; it is a deeply harmful document that seeks to provide pseudo-academic legitimacy to ideologies of exclusion and hate. Its release underlines the urgent need for accountability in academic spaces. We demand that the institutions and bodies associated with this report publicly distance themselves from its findings and conduct a thorough investigation into its ethical violations. Furthermore, we urge the academic community to reaffirm its commitment to scholarship that upholds justice, equality, and human rights, particularly in times of political and social crisis.
There is no ambiguity about the most basic principle in ethics of academic research – it must never bring harm to the participants and subjects, and it must never be a tool of oppression. We stand in solidarity with migrant communities whose lives and livelihoods are jeopardised by studies like this. At a time when democracy and human rights are under siege, as academics it is criminal to abdicate the values of empathy, inclusion, and ethical integrity in our scholarship.
It appears that the conclusions of this study were made before the sample was drawn. Otherwise as academics we see that there is no way the lack of methodological and conceptual clarity can be justified nor can the numbers and proportions claimed in this study be claimed as representing the real world.
Click here to access the complete statement along with the list of signatories