Abstract
The ‘Sinhala Only’ movement and centralization of power in the office of the president under the unitary system of government led to Sinhalese–Tamil polarization along ethnic lines. These changes were part of the postcolonial state policies of ‘overt majoritarianism’ (Oberst in The Journal of Federalism, 18(3):175–194, 1988), which favoured the majority over its minorities. These policies had a long-term impact on the Tamil population and later on Tamil refugees. The findings from Vavuniya and Mannar suggest that the refugees’ desire to repatriate ‘home’ remained implicit in the decision-making process (apparent in the absence of their entitlement and rights while in exile; also, their preference was never taken into consideration) and was external to the politics of repatriation as determined by the countries of asylum and origin: India and Sri Lanka, respectively.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The Sinhalese are concentrated in the southern part of Sri Lanka, the Tamils are mostly located in the northern and eastern parts of the island, and the Tamils of Indian origin are concentrated in the central province of the island. Muslims constitute a small part of the minority groups and are located mainly in the eastern part of the island.
- 2.
The population of the island is an estimated 18 million (with the exclusion of demographic data from the north and eastern part of Sri Lanka); 77.2% are Sinhalese, 6.1% are Sri Lankan Tamils, 4.8% are Tamils of Indian origin, 8.9% are Muslims and 3.0% belong to other ethnic groups (Burgher, Chetty etc.). For details, see http://www.statistics.gov.lk.
- 3.
Interviews conducted in Vavuniya and Mannar indicate that during refugees’ stay in exile, they already had pre-existing ideas of return. Some viewed that repatriation would occur only when the asylum state determined the process.
- 4.
The UNHCR estimates that as many as 50–60% refugees are born in exile; Refugee 134 (2000): 7. Note that the wording of the right concerned in the 1966 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights explicitly refers to entry rather than return: ‘It includes not only the right to return after having left one’s own country; it may also entitle a person to come to the country for the first time if he or she was born outside the country’. Human Rights Committee, General Comments 27 (Freedom of Movement, Art 12) UN doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9 (1999) para. 19.
- 5.
The Tamils in Sri Lanka are not a homogenous category. The Sri Lankan Tamils can be sub-divided into three categories: the Jaffna Tamils, the Batticaloa Tamils and the Colombo Tamils.
- 6.
I have conceptualized ‘home’ based on relevant literature, and I draw linkages with refugees’ idea of home and as indicated in the literature.
- 7.
Portuguese (1506–1658), Dutch (1658–1796) and British (1796–1948). The Ceylon Tamils traditionally enjoyed certain rights under the communal method of representation provided in the pre-1931 colonial legislature. Universal adult suffrage was granted under Britain in 1931; it provided a partial self-governing system of constitutional reforms. Under the Donoughmore Constitution in 1931, the communal means of representation was changed to territorial; this did not affect the Ceylon Tamils because they were safeguarded by constitutional protection that prevented any discriminatory legislation. Furthermore, the governor had a reserve of powers, including the right of disallowance. Later the Soulbury Constitution of 1947 completed the process of vesting conservative leadership with complete autonomy. The Reform Commission provided a compromise on the distribution of seats between Sinhala majority and the ethnic minority, wherein the Ceylon Tamils demanded 50–50 representations in respect to the number of seats between the Sinhala and the combined ethnic minorities.
- 8.
In addition to the language issue, there were other contentious issues: changes in university admission policy contributed greatly to the deterioration of ethnic relations, which led to the radicalization of politics in the Tamil areas in the north and east of the island. In 1970, Tamils, who constituted no more than an eighth of the island’s population, gained 35% of admissions to the science-based faculties; in engineering and medicine, it was as high as 40% (De Silva, ‘To Restore Peace to Sri Lanka’s Fractured Polity’, in http://www.peaceinsrilanka.org). The United Front coalition led by Sirimavo Bandaranaike introduced a fundamental change by instituting a system of standardization of marks by language media at the university entrance examinations. This measure put the Tamils in a disadvantaged position, as they had to obtain much higher aggregate of marks to enter any university level—for medical, science, etc.—than the Sinhalese. Thereafter, a district quota system was introduced that gave equal representation to students in rural areas. The Tamils viewed these measures as both discriminatory and deliberate attempts to prevent them from achieving their goals. However, these measures were reversed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, to a more equitable university admission system, with a mixture of both district quota and affirmative action for rural populations: Tamil, Sinhalese and Muslims. The Tamils’ share in courses was reduced from 35 to 25% in 1978–79, while the Sinhalese’ increased from 75.4% in 1974 to over 80% thereafter (Wilson 2003, 192). Another point of contention was the distribution of state-owned land among landless peasants. Tamils have long felt that the Sri Lankan state has used and privileged the Sinhalese in land distribution as well as recruitment to military and bureaucracy in order to change the demographic pattern in the eastern provinces on the island.
- 9.
Dhramadasa argues that Bandaranaike forged links with rural Sri Lanka by utilizing the mobilization potential while adhering to an ‘idea of religio-cultural nationalism’, which paved the way for acrimonious relations between the majority Sinhalese and minority Tamil communities.
- 10.
Wilson (1989) asserts the formation of Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) in 1951 by S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike who represented the nationalist Sinhala-Buddhist interest, which was the turning point in Sri Lankan history. The SLFP was a centrist party in comparison to the United National Party. On the extreme left were the Marxist parties. Initially, the Marxist groups stayed away from the centrist ideology of Sinhala nationalism, but later, a splinter group of the Marxist faction ‘abandoned its liberal stance for language’.
- 11.
The All-Ceylon Tamil Congress (ACTC) represented Tamil interests from 1944 to 1949, and later the Federal Party (FP) led the Ceylon Tamils from 1956 to 1983. After 1972, the FP entered into united fronts and other groups to assume the name of Tamil United Front (TUF) and the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF). The United National Party (UNP), formed in 1946–47, was mostly conservative on economic issues, as opposed to its SLFP counterpart.
- 12.
Bandaranaike had promised the creation of regional councils whereby the Northern Province was to form one regional area while the Eastern Province was to be divided into two or more regional areas. The councils were to have a certain devolution of power over agriculture, cooperatives, land and land development, colonization, education, health, industries, etc.
- 13.
S-C Pact of 1965 had provisions on language policy, decentralization of administration, and land settlement policy. The councils had power over subjects to be mutually agreed upon between two leaders. For the text of the Senanayake-Chelvanayakam Pact of 1965, see Monagaran 1987, 190. The Pact promised to take action under the Tamil Language Special Provisions Act to make Tamil the language of administration and of record in the northern and eastern provinces. Another landmark was the provision on amending Land Development Ordinance in order to allot land to Ceylon Tamils. Also, a provision was made to have land in the north and the eastern provinces to be made available to landless persons in the district.
- 14.
Two incidents made the presence of militancy real: the killing of SLFP Mayor in 1974 and the killings of four policemen in Velvettithurai in 1978 that changed the political scene in Sri Lanka. The killing heralded the beginning of terrorism, and the state had to adopt measures to counter political killing and violence.
- 15.
The 1972 Constitution virtually paved the way for majoritarian policies. It elevated the position of Buddhism, which did not sit well with minority groups. Historically, the demand of separate statehood assumed a concrete shape at the same time as the 1972 Constitution came into force, which was also called the ‘first republican constitution’.
- 16.
The 1978 Constitution introduced the proportional representation system and required two-third majority to amend the Constitution.
- 17.
The 1978 Constitution of Sri Lanka introduced a presidential form of government. Under the Constitution, the President was elected directly. It also introduced proportional representation, instead of the first-past-the-post system of the Westminster model. The sixth amendment imposed a ban on all political parties that advocated separatism and also those individuals who advocated such policies.
- 18.
Janatha Vimukti Peramuna (JVP), or Peoples’ Liberation Front, was responsible for instigating violence against minorities. The party has its root in the sectarian ideology, with ultra-leftist parties in the sixties, comprising educated unemployed youths. Later, the JVP became a Sinhalese-Buddhist ultra-nationalist party. The problem escalated in the 70s when large Tamil minorities were displaced from the northeastern parts of Sri Lanka to inland areas. The trigger was an armed conflict in July 1983 that led to the gradual militarization of Sri Lankan society, which culminated in the complete isolation of Tamil minorities in the north and eastern part of the island.
- 19.
An Anti-Terrorism Bill was introduced in the National Assembly to counter militarism; it only resulted in creating more ‘radicalized guerrilla’ groups: the National Democratic Liberation Front (ENDLF), Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Tamil Eelam Liberation Organisation (TELO), Eelam Revolutionary Organisation of Students (EROS), People’s Liberation Organisation of Tamil Eelam (PLOTE), Eelam People’s Revolutionary Liberation Front (EPRLF) and Tamil Eelam Liberation Army (TELA). Notwithstanding their difference in ideology, the groups were all averse to political bargaining and sought an armed solution to the Tamil question. These radicalized groups opposed the TULF, which was already part of the electoral politics. Nonetheless, their popularity also made TULF inadequate, and hence it raised questions about it being the sole custodian of Tamil interest.
- 20.
The Indian government mediated and brokered the peace agreement between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Tamil politico-military organization, was to declare Sri Lanka a “Democratic Republic of Sri Lanka” and to be recognized as the Union of States.
- 21.
See UNHCR Activities Financed by Voluntary Funds: Reports for 1991–1992 and Proposed Programmes and Budget for 1993-Part II Asia and Oceania: A/AC/96/93 (Part II, 17 August 1992 (United Nations).
- 22.
UNHCR Chennai 2002.
- 23.
Department of Rehabilitation, Government of Tamil Nadu, 2002.
- 24.
In 1991, the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) was constituted to work toward the devolution of power in the northern and eastern provinces. (See, Mr. Mangala Moonesinghe, M.P., Report from the Select Committee Appointed to Recommend Ways and Means of Achieving Peace and Political Stability in the Country (Colombo: Government Publication Bureau, 1993)), 53. The PSC intended to create two separate councils in the northern and eastern provinces and an Apex Assembly, the National Chamber to “establish harmony and coordination between the Center and the Peripheral Units with a view to integrating the Nation firmly.” The Tamil parties presented a “Four-Point Formula” to ensure a permanently merged North-Eastern Province (NEP) to represent the north as a unified politico-administrative entity. The Sri Lankan government compromised and promised to create the Regional Council (RC) for the entire north and eastern provinces, in addition to two elected Provincial Councils. Political parties viewed it as a compromise to the unitary nature of the state in Sri Lanka. A solution was devised to de-merge the North-East provinces with “distinct units of devolution and substantial devolution” and to convert the unitary nature of the Sri Lankan constitution into one that was federal, but subject to national referendums. Though parties supported the de-merger proposal, but they failed to arrive at a consensus on substantial changes in the Constitution.
- 25.
The government agent pointed out in an interview with me on 30 June 2002 that the situation in welfare camps was rather grim, and presently the Government of Sri Lanka was looking into other methods to resolve the problem. The GA agreed that welfare camps were meant to be temporary in nature, but because of peace efforts and stalemate between the government and LTTE, it was not safe for returnees to go back to their original place of habitation. However, another solution mentioned by the GA’s office was to relocate refugees to another part of Sri Lanka. It seemed that refugees belonging to Mannar were given preference in this matter, which meant that other returnees had to continue to live in welfare camps.
- 26.
As stated during an interview with the government agent in Vavuniya, June 2002.
- 27.
A group of refugees in Gumudpundi camp in Tamil Nadu indicated that they would have liked to stay on, but the government seemed reluctant to continue their ration (Interview, 29 July 2002).
- 28.
Poonthoddam welfare centre 8 had in total nine units that accommodated nearly 222 families and 847 members.
- 29.
Rani Nessarani was originally from Trincomalee. She was one of the 17th family of a total 200 families living in the welfare camp. Nessarani lived in the welfare camp with her family. Nessarani was originally from the western part of Sri Lanka. She and her family were forced to seek refuge in India when conflict broke out between LTTE and the Sri Lankan army. She has three children, and one of them was working in Dubai. Initially she had intended to go and work in the Middle East rather than going to India, but her son convinced her that India would be a safer option. During her stay in India, she lived in Gumudpundi camp in Tamil Nadu. Her family was repatriated in early 2000. They were not part of the official repatriation process, as the UNHCR ‘facilitated the return’. Since the family had decided to return ‘voluntarily’, they did not receive any governmental assistance as part of the resettlement package; they have been living a difficult life in the welfare camp.
- 30.
Government agent, interviewed 2 July 2002, Mannar.
- 31.
The excerpts of these testimonies focused on some basic questions to returnees such as reasons for fleeing India, repatriation and the nature of refugee life in country of origin. The excerpts indicate the present status of returnees in the country of origin and motivations for the possibility of seeking refuge in asylum states in the near future. These excerpts do not give the entire interviews conducted with each individual or family.
- 32.
Mr. Gopat was 50 years old. His family was originally from Jaffna and had to flee home due to army atrocities. During the conflict of the mid-80s, he lost his two sons in direct confrontation with ‘the Sri Lankan army’. He was forced to flee from Jaffna with his wife and two children during the conflict. Initially, his family sought refuge in the eastern part of Mannar in Sri Lanka. The family lived in Mannar for five years before seeking asylum in India. Like many families, Gopat’s family tried living in Sri Lanka after being displaced from Jaffna. Gopat’s sons were studying at Jaffna University prior to fleeing to India. While studying at the university, his sons were involved in the Tamil movement. It entailed mostly organizing talks and seminars and matters related to Tamil situations in the island. However, they were not part of the LTTE. Gopat asserted his sons’ vision of a Tamil solution to the problem was different from the one envisaged by LTTE. But he did not want to discuss how his sons were killed. He reiterated that people who ‘claimed to help Tamil cause and its people’ killed his sons. Gopat’s wife was approximately forty years old. She was a teacher in a community school in Jaffna before seeking refuge in Mannar. Presently, the couple has three children, between the ages of 16 and 20. The eldest daughter is 20 years old; the youngest son is 16. The second child is physically challenged. Both the eldest and the youngest children want to study further; however, since they had to move around a lot, the family has no documents to prove their status.
- 33.
Basantha was married to Mahalakshmi’s son Muruli in Jaffna. During the conflict of the mid-80s, she continued to live in Jaffna. Her father-in-law’s shop was burnt down and he was killed in the incident. Muruli was a member of the Tamil organization, and his task entailed organizing events and generating awareness among Tamil-speaking people living in the eastern part of Sri Lanka. She pointed out that her husband’s involvement was more an activist role, and it was aimed towards creating a sense of awareness among the Tamil population. With regard to her role in the organization, Basantha said that she often helped her husband in organizing events; however, after her husband’s death, Basantha decided to seek refuge in India along with Mahalakshmi.
- 34.
Mahalakshmi was nearly 60 years old living with her daughter-in-law Basantha. Mahalakshmi lost her husband in the riot of 1983 in Colombo. Her son was part of the Tamil movement and was an active member of political organization in Sri Lanka. Lakshmi’s husband had a shop in Colombo, while the rest of the family lived in Jaffna. During the conflict of the mid-80s, riots erupted in Colombo and other parts of Sri Lanka where the shop was looted and set on fire; Lakshmi’s husband died in the fire. After losing her husband, Lakshmi decided to move to Mullaitivu and stay with her sister. Lakshmi’s son continued to live in Jaffna. In 1990, conflict erupted in Jaffna between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan army. During this conflict, Lakshmi lost her son. Thereafter, she decided to seek refuge in India. In 1993, Lakshmi and her daughter-in-law arrived in India. They lived in Mandapam camp for a period of two years. At the end of the second year they were transferred to Sivakasi camp. While living in Sivakasi camp Lakshmi was able to get dole and ration. The family lived in Sivakasi for five years. Lakshmi and her daughter-in-law were repatriated in 1997 as part of the spontaneous repatriation process.
- 35.
They are sisters originally belonging to Mullaitivu, Sri Lanka. The political crisis of the mid-80s was responsible for their displacement from Jaffna to Mullaitivu. During this period, some parts of Sri Lanka were unaffected; Mullaitivu was one such area. Soon the crisis changed: it turned into an armed conflict between various Tamil nationalist groups and the Sri Lankan army. The sisters were part of the armed struggle; however, their role was mostly limited to organizing meeting events, etc. Given the limited role in the Tamil movement during the early 90s, both sisters decided to flee India. The sisters lived in special camp of Vellore for three years. The sisters were married in was repatriated in the late 90s as part of the official repatriation process.
- 36.
Gajendra was originally from Trincomalee. His Thiruvannamalai refugee camp in India. The family family was forced to flee and seek refuge in India in the early 1990s. He has been living in a transit camp for quite some time now. Gajendra was living with his mother and three children. Gajendra lost his wife in India. She died of an acute stomach problem. Since then, he has been taking care of his children with the help of his mother. Gajendra’s mother is 65 years old with acute health problems. Gajendra pointed out that one of the reasons the family decided to return to Sri Lanka was because of his mother’s poor health. In fact, his children were in favour of staying back in India. His sons were working in the local NGO of ERR. The youngest daughter went to school regularly in India. The family was part of the official repatriation of 1997 between India and Sri Lanka. Since 1997, Gajendra and his family have been living in a transit camp in Pessalai. He indicated in the interview that during the repatriation process, most refugee families did not understand what was happening. The idea of resuming old lives as ‘citizens of the state’ encouraged repatriation. Since returning to Sri Lanka, Gajendra pointed out ‘they have been living a life of refugees once again’. While living in Sri Lanka, refugees continue to live in camps and cannot go back to Trincomalee. Also his mother’s health was not good and he was concerned that with limited rations and no jobs they would not last long. Gajendra said, ‘If I had known that returning to Sri Lanka would mean this then I would have stayed back in India’. The sons have been doing some odd jobs, but remuneration was not good. There have been days when family members had nothing to eat. The family was given a resettlement allowance when they returned to Sri Lanka, but it did not last long. Soon, money ran out, and they were back to their original condition of being ‘refugees’.
- 37.
The framework proposed in 1994 had provisions for devolution of power, finance, law, land, administration, and also two lists of subjects: the regional list and the reserved list (federal government list). Along with the preamble and chapters 1 (features of the constitution) and 2 (Buddhism), it also had some of the basic issues that dealt with articles 2 and 76, which had the unitary features of the constitution. Both articles 2 and 76 were deleted from the Draft, and it nearly took the step in making the constitution federal were, in essence, constitutional reforms aimed to replace the existing unitary constitution with a federal constitution and lay the structure of federal form of government; in reality, the proposals failed to achieve this goal. The talks were disrupted by the political assassination of Gamini Dissanayake, allegedly by LTTE, which ended the ongoing ceasefire.
- 38.
The Poonthoddam Unit 2 comprised 171 families consisting of 710 members. Mr. S. Tahnjkashalem was the camp-in-charge of Unit 2. The camp profile clearly indicated the exact location of displacement of refugee families. The camp consists of families from Jaffna (17 families; 82 members), Killinochchi (76 families; 325 members), Mullaitivu (68 families; 279 members), Vavuniya (uncleared territory) (9 families; 18 members), and Vavuniya (cleared territory) (1 family; 6 members). Most people were allowed to enter Vavuniya cleared area via Thandikulam since 1996.
- 39.
I use the term ‘recycler’ in relation to refugees who had been repatriated from country of asylum more than once.
- 40.
Karupiah Ganesh was 60 years old. He lived with his wife and three sons in the welfare camp in Vavuniya. His wife was suffering from gastric-related problems. The problem was diagnosed for the first time in India. Over a period of time, the family moved around various camps in India. They lived in India for 10 years and later were repatriated to Sri Lanka more than once. This family was called the ‘recycler’. They first sought refuge in India in the mid-80s. The family was from Trincomalee, which was the hot seat of conflict, and had to flee during the intense conflict between Tamil groups and Sri Lankan army. While living in India, they stayed in Mandapam camp for a year and half. Later the family was transferred to Sivakasi and to the northern part of Tamil Nadu. But as part of the Indian peacekeeping mission, these refugees accompanied the Indian army sent to the island of Sri Lanka. Thus the first repatriation occurred when Indian peacekeepers were sent to Sri Lanka in the late 80s; a large group of refugees accompanied them as part of the good will mission. Soon they were allowed to go back to the place of displacement. Though the families returned to Trincomalee, they soon had to flee home again when conflict broke out between SLA and LTTE. Due to intense power struggle between the various Tamil groups to gain the supremacy of the Tamil representation, the family had to flee to India again. Twice displaced refugees were allowed to return to original habitat, but had to flee when severe fighting broke out between the government forces and the LTTE.
- 41.
In the case of P. Nedumaran and Dr. S. Ramdoss versus The Union of India, the court ruled in favour of petitioners (WP No. 12343 of 1992 ‘to direct respondents to nominate the respective Judges to verify the voluntariness of the refugees to go back to their country’).
- 42.
T. Victoria was 41 years old. She first visited India in 1990 and stayed for three years. Victoria’s family returned to India for the first time to Sri Lanka in 1992–93; later they were back in India. The family have been twice displaced and repatriated to Sri Lanka. They moved between three camps while living India: (1) Virendranagar, Vallai Pulti Camp; (2) Kallurchandri camp; and (3) Sivalaskshmi Camp. In 1993 when the family returned to Sri Lanka, they wanted to stay back and rebuild their lives. In terms of money, the family received Rs. 300 per month to help defray the costs of clothes, utensils, etc. However, during their first period of repatriation to India, the family lived in Pessalai camp. Soon the family found the means to return to India, as life was rather grim in Sri Lanka. They preferred ‘restriction in terms of their movement in India’ but could not stay in Sri Lanka. The expectation that the family had after returning to Sri Lanka for the first time soon disappeared. During the second period of their exile in India, the family lived in Gumudpundi camp in Chennai. The reasons for repatriating the second time around were that the family was part of the forced repatriation under the ‘verification/authentication of the UNHCR’. Since 1997, the family has been living in Sithamparapuram settlement camp in Vavuniya.
- 43.
G. Sivasothy was 45 years old. His family comprised his wife, mother and three children under the age of 18. His family was repatriated in the mid-90s. Sivasothy’s wife was from Jaffna and most children were born in Sri Lanka. They had to leave Jaffna during the problems of the late 80s when a power struggle broke over Jaffna territory between the LTTE and Sri Lankan army. The family sought refuge in India and stayed in Mandapam for nearly four years. Soon after, they were transferred to camps in Thiruvannamalai district. While living in the camp, Sivasothy had a comfortable life: he received regular dole along with ration (which was a little irregular), but he was happy because his children were allowed to go to school. Their education did not suffer. Most children going to school in India were able to get special meals; however, the special diet was given to children within the age group of 7–13.
- 44.
Tanghai Parvari was 46 years of age and lived with six family members. She visited India for the first time in 1985 and returned in 1988 as part of the National Housing Development; she was compensated with Rs 25,000. After a brief period in Sri Lanka, she decided to go back to India again. The reason for her fleeing had more to do with the crisis that was brewing in the island. During her first visit to India in 1985, she lived in Tarapuram camp for two years, and one year in Mandpam camp in Tamil Nadu. During the first period of her stay in India, the Collector’s Office (CO) had visited the camp and tried to convince the refugees to go back to Sri Lanka, and later incentives were offered too. It was interesting that CO would get involved in such a clandestine affair to make refugees go back. The backdrop of this repatriation is the nature of the political situation both in Tamil Nadu and India prevailing at that point of time. In 1990, they lived in Avinashi Camp for a period of two years. She has six family members and lacked resources to take care of them. In terms of money, they were given an amount of Rs. 120 per month, which was not adequate, but the family managed somehow. She also indicated that during her second visit she was less inclined to go back to India but had little choice and therefore had to return. She has been living in welfare camp for eight years.
- 45.
The returnee-refugees were given resettlement packages consisting of dry ration (rice, pulses, salt, oil, chilli powder and sugar). They were provided financial assistance that varied from Rs. 6000 to Rs. 8000 as part of the package to help them rebuild their lives. While living in a transit camp, the government agent’s office promised that the duration of their stay would be for a short while only, and refugees would be able to return to their home place. Since that statement, according to returnee-refugees, more than a few months have passed, and they are still living in transit. The refugees had not anticipated that repatriation would result in transforming them into refugees in their own homeland.
- 46.
Selvanari was another inhabitant in the same camp. Selvanari lived with her 12-year-old daughter. She was originally from Trincomalee. She was part of repatriation process of mid-nineties. Her family was repatriated from Sivakasi camp in India. Selvanari and her daughter decided to return to Sri Lanka because they presumed their return would automatically translate into resuming old lives. But Selvanari soon realized that repatriation would not be a return in the true sense. Selvanari did not want to talk much about living in India, although her daughter pointed out that life in India was much better compared to living in Sri Lanka. Selvanari’s daughter complained that in India she was allowed to study but since returning have failed to gain admission in school.
- 47.
There were various committees created to oversee the peace process. The first Sub-committee was to address the constitutional, legal, and administrative affairs; second Sub-committee was to deal with De-Escalation and Normalization (SDN), which was to address the security concerns of the government. The third Sub-committee was to address the Immediate Humanitarian and Rehabilitation Needs of the Northeast (SIHRN), with special emphasis on women and children affected during war. The government cautioned against possible concessions prior to the complete “decommissioning of weapons by the Tigers” and the construction of the High Security Zone (HSZ), which would generate security concerns as some of the shortcomings of the ceasefire. See The Island (Colombo), 3 October 2002.
- 48.
According the Sri Lankan Government’s Secretariat for Coordinating Peace Process (SCOPP) 2002–05, the number of ceasefire violations committed by Government of Sri Lanka was 144 and that of LTTE was 3,186.
- 49.
The LTTE proposed an Interim Self-Governing Authority (ISGA) for the Northeastern part of Sri Lanka. The ISGA proposal was to create DCs to “effectively exercise legislative and executive powers in eight districts of Amparai, Batticaloa, Jaffna, Killinochchi, Mannar, Mullaitivu, Trincomalee and Vavuniya in the Northeast until a final negotiated solution could be reached and accepted.” In terms of functioning of PAC, the GoSL proposal would have the ability to function on its own except in matters of police, security, land, revenue – but included rehabilitation, reconstruction, and resettlement. However, the modalities of the degree of involvement would be subject to discussion between two parties. Regarding finances, the government stated that in addition to funds from the donors to the Northeast Reconstruction Fund (NERF), funds were to be allocated by the GoSL. The ISGA according to LTTE was to have “absolute jurisdiction” in the affairs of NEP including resettlement, rehabilitation, reconstruction, and development, as well as the improvement and upgrading of existing services and facilities (RRRD).
- 50.
There is a difference between repatriation of refugees and actual return to place of displacement: repatriation seems to be the logical end of the refugee cycle, whereas I have argued that it is with the actual return to the place of habitation that repatriation will work.
- 51.
Coles (1985) points out that the concept of home includes more than a mere physical location but also a community associated with the place. Warner (1994, 165) challenges the assumption of the neat alignment of states, communities, physical locations and home and argues that ‘it is relations with other people which ground man in his existence, and not the physical grounding of the individual and group within a given space’. The link between home and physical location encourages the idea of return as a means of recovering a ‘home’, a past that cannot be recreated yet that exists in the minds of displaced people. Also, there may be changes both within the refugee community along with the place of origin and its politics, but that may not prevent refugees from desiring to return to their ‘home’. Kibreab (2003), though critical of the notion of ‘home’ as an imagery concept existing in the mind of refugees, agrees that it influences the act of return.
- 52.
- 53.
- 54.
Some of the refugees interviewed clearly defied the role of LTTE in the conflict, but they did not want to be cited and preferred to be anonymous.
- 55.
A pejorative term used to make a distinction between refugees who have been repatriated once, yet who continue to seek refuge in the same asylum states once situations in the country of origin have failed to improve.
- 56.
RRAN Update, April 2003.
- 57.
The families belonging to different regions of Sri Lanka other than Mannar were denied the opportunity to move into different areas. The relocation programme was adopted by the Government of Sri Lanka, as more and more returnee-refugees continued to live in the welfare centres with little possibility of returning to their actual place of habitation/exact location of displacement. The GA in Mannar revealed that there were other programmes intending to relocate refugees to different areas of Sri Lanka, beside Mannar, but it was on hold, as the Sri Lankan government was yet to determine whether it was safe to relocate refugees to Jaffna, Trincomalee, and other areas.
- 58.
Vadival and Kamela Devi, along with six other members returned to Sri Lanka on May 14, 1992, from Poornapurthy camp in Pallavi in Tamil Nadu. They lived in a transit/ welfare camp for 5–6 years. During this long period of stay in transit Vadival and Devi took various kinds of jobs and made a living with great difficulty. The family had to face lot of hardship while living in welfare camps. Vadival and Devi are not related but have been taking care of each other since their repatriation from India. The family now lives in a resettled area located in Madhukarai. Since their resettlement the family has been enjoying a different life. They liked living in Madhukarai. The local NGOs often took care of them. The family now has an acre of land on which they have built their “own house.” The family was resettled in 2001 and were living relatively better than other refugees in welfare camps. Also the family still maintained contact with old friends living in welfare camps. Since their lives seemed different from those living in the WC, resettled refugees were working toward becoming “citizens of Sri Lanka.”
- 59.
Krishna Swami Vasantha was 38 years old and lived with four family members, including her mother-in-law, in Madhukarai, Mannar. The family had been living in a transit camp for ten years and was later re-settled in August 2001. She came back from India in 1992 and lived in Sithamparapuram for a brief period of time. Later, she moved to two subsequent camps for various reasons: Chauripata camp in Kadalu district, and Sithamparapuram camp in Vavuniya. Krishna returned to Sri Lanka because it was her “home.” According to Vasantha, home was always better than living in alien territory. In terms of assistance, the UNHCR was responsible in providing information, and refugees were more than willing to go back. The UNHCR was quite helpful to them in providing all kinds of assistance in terms of food, milk powder, and toys for children too. Vasantha was happy that her family was resettled in Madhukarai. Although she had difficulties while living in India and later in the WC, Madhukarai was “almost home.” They were able to move around freely, and the family often wanted to visit WCs. But the family was prevented from visiting the camp because of a pass system. The family was happy that they now could “earn their own living” and did not need to be dependent on the government for rations.
- 60.
Krishna Amma lived with her daughter, K. Kalaichavi. She has been living in India for 9 years and has had a difficult life. While in India, she lived in Avinashi Santhapate Camp in Chennai. She came back to Sri Lanka on May 15, 1992. At the time of the interview, she lived with five other members, including one older sister, her parents, and her brother. Amma has found memories of India, but she was glad that her family was relocated in Madhukarai. This family was a “recycler” but was now living in Madhukarai. In 1990, they came back to Sri Lanka, only to leave once again. The family was well aware of the fact that refugees have certain rights and that they were well within their means to stay and go back to India. After 12 years of displacement they were finally resettled, and they were happy. Amma wanted to grow vegetables on the acre of land given to the family as part of the relocation package, even though the family mostly consisted of womenfolk; that did not deter her, however, from seeking help from local agencies to help her till the land. Amma insisted that since their relocation to another territory, “they almost feel at home.”
- 61.
The Hon. Minister indicated that the Government of Sri Lanka was looking for a permanent solution either to resettle refugees in different parts of Sri Lanka or to relocate them. Given the growing numbers of returnees living in various welfare camps, the ministry had also discouraged further repatriation process from India, until those living in welfare camps were rehabilitated. J. Jayewardene, interviewed in June 2002.
References
Allen, T., & Turton, D. (1996). Introduction: In search of cool ground. In T. Allen (Ed.), Search of cool ground: War, flight and homecoming in Northeast Africa. London: James Curry Ltd.
Attiya, H. (1988, April). Interviews in refugees, 52.
Bullion, A. (1995). India, Sri Lanka and the Tamil crisis, 1976–1994: An international perspective. London: New York Pinter.
Cernea, M. M. (2000). Risks, safeguards and reconstruction: A model for population displacement. Economic and Political Weekly, 35(41), 3659–3678.
Chimni, B. (2003). Post-conflict peace building and the return of refugees: Concepts, practices and institutions. In N. Edward & J. V. Selm (Eds.), Refugees and forced displacement international security human vulnerability and the state (pp. 195–221). United Nation Press.
Coles, G. (1985). Voluntary repatriation: A background study. Paper prepared for the round table on voluntary repatriation. San Remo, Italy: International Institute of Humanitarian Law/UNHCR.
De Silva, K. M. (1996). Sri Lanka: Ethnic conflict, management and resolution. Kandy: International Centre for Ethnic Studies.
De Silva, K. M. (1998). Reaping the whirlwind ethnic conflict: Ethnic politics in Sri Lanka. India: Penguin Books.
de Wet, C. (1995). Moving together, drifting apart. Betterment planning and villagization in a South African homeland. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.
DeVotta, N. (2000). Control democracy, institutional decay, and the quest for Eelam: Explaining ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. Pacific Affairs, 73(1), 55–76.
Dhramadasa, K. (1990). Language, religion, and ethnic assertiveness: The growth of Sinhalese nationalism in Sri Lanka. Ann Arbor: Michigan University.
Edrisinha, R. (1999). Constitutionalism, pluralism, ethnic conflict. In R. I. Rotberg (Ed.), Creating peace in Sri Lanka: Civil war, and reconciliation. Washington: Brooking Institution Press.
Ezrahi, S. (1992). Our homeland, the text … our text, the homeland: Exile and homecoming in the modern jewish imagination. Michigan Quarterly Review, 31(4), 463–497.
Hammond, L. (1999). Examining the discourse of repatriation: Towards a more proactive theory of return migration. In R. Black & K. Koser (Eds.), The end of the refugee cycle? Refugee repatriation and reconstruction (pp. 227–244). New York: Berghahn Books.
Karadawi, A. (1999). Refugee policy in Sudan 1967–1984. New York: Berghahn Books.
Kearney, R. (1973). The politics of Ceylon. Ittaca, NY: Cornell University.
Kearney, R. (1985, September). Ethnic conflict and the Tamil separatist movement in Sri Lanka. Asian Survey, 25(9), 898–917.
Kibreab, G. (2003, Spring). Citizenship rights and repatriation of refugees. International Migration Review, 37, 24–74.
Malkki, L. (1992). National geographic: The rooting of peoples and the territorialization of national identity among scholars and refugees. Cultural Anthropology, 7(1), 24–44.
Malkki, L. (1995). Purity and exile: Violence, memory and national cosmology among Hutu refugees in Tanzania. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Monagaran, C. (1987). Ethnic conflict and reconciliation in Sri Lanka. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Nissan, E., & Stirrat, R. (1990). The Generation of communal identity. In Sri Lanka: History and roots of conflict. London: Routledge.
Oberst, R. C. (1988, January 1). Federalism and ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. The Journal of Federalism, 18(3), 175–194.
Peters, B. G. (1992, July). The policy process: An institutionalist perspective. Canadian Public Administration, 35(2), 127–279.
Ponnambalam, S. (1983). Sri Lanka: The national question and the Tamil liberation struggle. London: Zed Publications.
Rajanayagam, D.-H. (1994). Tamil and the meaning of history. The Sri Lankan tamils, ethnicity and identity. Colorado: Westview.
Sahadevan, P., & Devotta, N. (2006). Politics of conflict and peace in Sri Lanka. New Delhi: Manak.
Senanayake, D. (1965). Chelvanayakam pact. Sri Lanka.
Stepputat, F. (1994). Repatriation and the politics of space: The case of the Mayan diaspora and return movement. Journal of Refugee Studies, 7(2 & 3), 175–185.
Suryanarayan, V., & Sudarsen, V. (2000). Between fear and hope: Sri Lankan refugees in Tamil Nadu. Chennai: T. R Publications.
Warner, D. (1992). We are all refugees. International Journal of Refugee Law, 4(3), 365–372.
Warner, D. (1994). Voluntary repatriation and the meaning of return to home: A critique of liberal mathematics. Journal of Refugee Studies, 7, 160–174.
Wilson, A. J. (1980). The gaullist system in Asia: The constitution of Sri Lanka (1978). London: Macmillan.
Wilson, A. J. (1988). The break-up of Sri Lanka: The Sinhalese-Tamil conflict. London: C. Hurst & Co., Publishers.
Wilson, A. J. (2003). Sri Lanka: Ethnic strife and the politics of space. In J. Coakley (Ed.), The territorial management of ethnic conflict (pp. 173–193). Oregon: Frank Cass.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chowdhory, N. (2018). The Politics of Accommodation and the Rights of Tamils in Sri Lanka. In: Refugees, Citizenship and Belonging in South Asia. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0197-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0197-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-0196-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-0197-1
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)