Sri Lanka: 'Return of the Natives', from India? 

N Sathiya Moorthy, www.orfonline.org, 8 January 2013

During a recent visit to New Delhi, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Antonio Guterres, told 'The Hindu': "India with its history, culture, traditions, is today an example of generosity in the way it has opened its borders to all people who have come looking for safety and sanctuary. There are Tibetans, Afghans, Myanmarese in India and it has maintained an open-door policy for all. India has a generous approach in relationship to all people and a proof of that is the granting of long term visas and work permits to refugees. We consider India a more reliable partner in the world to guarantee that people who need help will find a place. And more importantly at a time when there are so many closed borders in the world, and many people have been refused protection, India has been generous.? 

Antonio Guterres, the former Prime Minister of Portugal, should know as nation after nation in the western hemisphere are closing their doors to refugees from others, mostly the South and Third World nations, where war and violence, national disasters and unstable State structures, have contributed to burgeoning numbers of internally-displaced persons (IDPs) and also refugees seeking asylum, physical and/or political, elsewhere. There are as many stories of people wanting to manipulate the inherent generosity of existing systems in other nations as there are stories of State-sponsored political exclusion and physical violence in their countries of origin. 

Many western nations have schemes and systems in place as much to delineate 'economic migrants' ultimately seeking citizenship status, as different from refugee status, using conditions back home as perceived justification, as there are those that these nations offer to those in real need of external care and political asylum. Such constructs have often varied with the vagaries of the job market in the West is often unacknowledged. Or, so it would seem. Not in India, and when it comes to refugees, from whichever country they come from. For India and Indians, 'vasu-deva-kudumbaham', or the 'world is one family', is not an empty slogan in Sanskrit. 

Voluntary repatriation 

In comparison, the case of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in India, housed in the south Indian State of Tamil Nadu, should also be the story of India's open-door policy and generosity about which the UN official had spoken about in New Delhi, after meetings with External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid, Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde and Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai, among others. It has also been very well documented and researched over the past several years when up to 250,000 Sri Lankan Tamils had sought and got asylum in Tamil Nadu, at its peak in the Eighties. Today, around 67,000 refugees from Sri Lanka are housed in 112 Government-run camps in the State. Apart from them, half nearly half those numbers are staying outside the camps, and on their own volition. They have the wherewithal to do so. 

The changing figures over the decades have a story to tell about the repatriation of these refugees to their native lands. Like most other peoples across the world, the Sri Lankan Tamils, at least of the generation preceding the ethnic war in that country, were wedded to their lands and other earthy and earthly possessions. A hard working, agriculture community that they traditionally had been, the advent of modern education and employment in the Government services, pre-Independence, did not deter their culture-driven emotional and physical identification and linkages with the land of their origin and that in their possession. 

This, over the three-plus decades of war, also meant that most of them would want to return home at the first signs of the war abating in their native towns and villages back in Sri Lanka. Others however have remained in the camps, and from time to time. There have been reports of some or many of them wanting to go back home. Nothing much however has happened on that score, particularly after the conclusion of the decisive 'Eelam War IV' in Sri Lanka. These are people different from their brethren who planned their exit to far-away lands in the West, with possible intention and definite decisions since, not to return home, now or ever. Their children, born in those distant lands, do not know how home looked like, for them to think of returning there for good. 

Talking about the reverse-migration or repatriation of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in the Government-run camps in India, Antonio Guterrers told The Hindu: "The number of people going back to Sri Lanka has decreased substantially in the recent past. We need to look into what are the obstacles and how the two Governments of India and Sri Lanka, working together can improve the conditions and create opportunities for the voluntary repatriation of the people. Voluntary is the key word here.? 

In the same vein and answering another question, Antonio Guterres had this to say of the Sri Lankan Government's efforts to facilitate their early return: "More needs to be done by the governments of the country of origin, to create conditions for people to feel comfortable about considering the possibility of returning. It has to do with the living conditions, work, education, health, property and security. These are all key questions that need to be addressed for the voluntary repatriation of the people. It is very important that the governments of the country of origin do everything possible to re-establish the confidence of people. And I hope it will be also possible in the near future to intensify the voluntary repatriation of the Tamils into Sri Lanka.? 

Only voluntary repatriation 

What is often less understood outside - and seldom brought out, too - is the fact that the Government of India is not in the habit of forcing refugees to leave the shores, or creating conditions for them to choose that course, if and when in the assessment of governments like that in New Delhi, conditions may have been created in the country of origin to return home. When India says it has to be 'voluntary repatriation', it means voluntary repatriation. This was so when after the 2002 ceasefire agreement in Sri Lanka, some camp inmates in Tamil Nadu wanted to return home. So did some of them wanted to return after the conclusion of 'Eelam War IV'. 

For Sri Lankan Tamil refugees, going beyond the umbilical cord relations with Tamil Nadu, the language that they both speak has an adage that the south Indian State can be proud of. Translated, the proverb, 'Vanthaarai vazha-vaikkum-Thamizhagam'means that Tamil Nadu welcomed all those who come to the State (with hope and aspiration) with open arms (and heart) and let/help them prosper. To date, the competitive nature of pan-Tamil politics in the State takes pride in continuing to prove the proverb right. 

On the issue of 'voluntary repatriation', the case of the 'Bangladeshi refugees' still scattered around India, should be a case in point. They arrived in hordes, stayed back in hundreds of thousands even after the 'Liberation War' in that country had ended as far back as 1971. Today, most of them are 'economic refugees', and their numbers have only been growing over the past decade and more. If there was a problem of refugees altering the domestic demographic composition in any area, State or region, India has treated it more as a domestic issue of the country, and not forcing them to exit. The years-long 'Assam agitation' in the Eighties was all about the Bangladeshi refugees who stayed back in the north-eastern State long after the 'Bangladesh War' had ended. 

The fact is that many of these Bangladesh refugee have got themselves enrolled in the State as voters, using the weak links in Indian policy, polity and bureaucracy at all levels, as if their voter-identity then, and the voter-identity card since, is proof of their having acquired Indian citizenship. And when zealots in the western Maharashtra State wanted them out of the local labour market, in the eastern West Bengal, the State Government would stop the motorcade carrying these refugees to the Bangladesh borders, en route, and 'free' them, too. That is as far as politics too goes in the cause of refugees. 

No electoral tags attached 

Nothing would explain the open-mindedness of the Tamil Nadu population to the Sri Lankan refugees than their attitude towards them at the height of the 'Rajiv Gandhi assassination'. The whole State was shocked and hurt when the former Prime Minister, on an election campaign for his possible return to power, was gunned down on its soil. The fact that the LTTE was behind it did open their eyes to a facet of the ethnic war and violence in Sri Lanka, but that did not influence them in any way to shun the innocent Tamils in their midst, equitably distributed across the districts, in camps that cropped up without question whenever the refugee numbers shot up. 

If in the early months of the Rajiv Gandhi assassination, the Governments at the Centre and in the State found it necessary to provide police security to the camps, apprehending revengeful attacks on the hapless refugees, sooner than later, the inmates too drew the limits to the generosity of the host population, with which they had taken time getting accustomed to. Today, under the rules and regulations governing their presence in Tamil Nadu and India, these inmates are allowed to stay away from the camps for a substantial length of time, for genuine reasons of education and employment, medical care or social commitments like attending weddings and funerals of relatives or friends. 

That way, both for marrying off daughters and the funeral of their dead, the refugees get substantial financial aid from the State Government. As is customary in Tamil Nadu, the first female child in any refugee family gets four grams of gold (for'thali' or 'mangalsutra') and ' 50,000 at the time of wedding. For the rest of the girl children in the family, the cash aid would be ' 25,000. The four-gram gold offer remains. Likewise, the 'female child protection scheme' provides for the Government to deposit ' 50,000 (for a single girl child) and ' 25,000 each for two female children. The scheme however comes with a tag. It seeks to encourage the refugees to adopt the small-family norm and to ensure education for their girls. . It used to be ' 2500 for funeral expenses and has been doubled in recent years. 

In a State that is conscious of the 'social commitment' of the Government, which otherwise gets dubbed as election-driven 'populist measures', successive administrations have only added to the long list of existing aid and assistance to the refugees by including more, every passing year. There may be exceptions but the norm in Tamil Nadu today is that whatever 'social security schemes' that are on offer to the local population get extended to the inmates of Sri Lankan Tamil refugee camps. None of the refugees is a voter in India, for successive Governments in the State to entice them with even more, and expect them to vote for the party in power. It's borne out of genuine humanitarian concerns and interests, possibly strengthened by the 'umbilical cord' relations, which also means that they all speak the same lingo. 

It is thus that refugee families have been getting 'cash gifts' every month (' 1000 for the head of the family, ' 750 for each elder and ' 400 each for children below 12), dry rations (20 kg free rice and the rest at ' 0.57 per kg on a stratified scale of consumption for grown-ups and children), kerosene and other items of cooking at subsidised rates, free clothing every year (including blankets for senior citizens every two years), cooking utensils every two years, ' 12,000 cash aid each for women for two pregnancies, monthly old age pension of ' 1,000 each (applicable to widows and destitute women and the differently-abled), free school education (with free uniforms and bicycles in higher classes), professional college admissions under the single-window scheme for the 'General' category, and scholarship for children (however limited the amount be, compared to the costs). 

To encourage women to eek out honest and honourable living, sewing machines are given free to the qualified among the refugees. The women self-help groups that are a success story outside the camps have also been introduced inside the camps. For good reasons, women are acknowledged as 'head of the family' for all purposes of the cash doles, lest the men should divert those monies to drinking. Where there are special programmes, as outlined already, they address the demands of an embedded community that could not shirk its cultural mores. Hence, the Tamil Nadu Government assistance for weddings and funerals, and social security for their women, which joint families used to provide in a bygone era but no more. 

Power-cuts, not for 'em 

As coincidence would have it, when much of Tamil Nadu has been facing very long hours of power-cut for years now, the staggered programme does not cover the camps. What more, when there is already talk of voluntary repatriation of the refugees to native Sri Lanka, successive State Governments have been competing with each other to ensure that their old dwellings and surroundings are as habitable and as hospitable as they can be. In the post-war era, funds were earmarked for attending to repairs to the houses in the camps, and to relay/improve the drainage system. 

The hygiene system in the Tamil Nadu camps may not be the best but they are not as bad as the 'floating toilets' which alone UN agencies and other INGOs insisted that the Sri Lankan Government should have in the newly-built, post-war IDP camps in the country. Three years down the line, they are happy that the IDP camps are shut, but are unhappy that enough has not been done for the IDPs -- and, now for the refugees to make a voluntary choice to return home. Thereby hangs another tale. 

It did not stop there, either. In what is possibly a unique experiment in refugee-rehabilitation programme across nations, and seas, the Tamil Nadu Government, with the support of the Centre and cooperation from the Sri Lankan State, facilitated crash courses in the refugee camps for inmates to appear for their O-level examinations under the Sri Lankan scheme, on a couple of occasions. The scheme was coordinated by OfERR, the Sri Lankan Tamil refugee NGO, and was implemented at the height of 'Eelam War-IV', if only to prepare voluntary repartees at the end of the war to equip them for higher education in their native land. 

What should be even more interesting was that Sri Lankan teachers in various examination subjects stayed near some of the camps in Tamil Nadu for three or four months, to impart knowledge to those students. Likewise, Education Department officials from Sri Lanka camped in the Tamil Nadu capital of Chennai for a couple of weeks or so, to conduct these examinations at a common centre for all qualified refugee children, to a common time-table and question-paper as they were back home. 

At the height of the war, and even thereafter, there have been murmurs of protests in some of the camps, less about the conditions inside the camps than those outside - including perceptions of what they are back home in Sri Lanka. Where protests were held, the State and Central Government in India have looked at them with sympathy (where they involved camp improvements) and empathy, ensuring however that the inmates' perceptions on 'Eelam War IV' did not come in the way of their continuance in India causing concerns on the law and order front in particular. 

There are two 'special camps' exclusively for those that are identified with the LTTE, where acknowledged by all there is relatively high security for the inmates - as much to ensure that they are not targeted, as they do not end up targeting anyone else, Indian or Sri Lankan. Their protests are often political, and include demands for their reparation to the normal camps. The Government of course has schemes to review the case of individual inmates in these camps, to ensure that those that are cleared do not have to stay on there, eternally. 

Europe-centric mindset yet? 

It is the kind of attitude and mind-set that has instilled in the UNHCR staff in Delhi to title their website report on Antonio Guterres as 'Refugees in India share daily struggles with UNHCR chief' when he himself had only good things to say about the Government of India's policies and practices. After all, many of them have not approved of India still not signing the UN Refugee Convention of 1951 or enacting a domestic law for the purpose, both designed in the context of post-War Europe, where individualism reigned and a collective conscience needed to be injected from outside. They did not understand, hence provide for, India's kind of 'history, traditions, culture? and generosity'. 

Maybe, now that the UNHCR chief has acknowledged that things can be done differently and effectively outside of their template model, either it could approve them as such. Better still, agencies like the UNHCR could revisit their 'best practices regimen' and revise their recommendations, rules and regulations for the whole world to follow, basing them on the unlearnt lessons from what they once used to consider as unlettered nations. In a manner of speaking, these nations are the ones that have shown that national traditions can do more than what notional regulations and conventions can achieve - and that not all nations required to be told as to what needed doing for the needy, when and how. 

Yet, the website report too could not but be complimentary to the natural Indian commitment and efforts. "India is a refugee-friendly country despite the fact it has not signed the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and does not have a national refugee law. The fundamental human rights of refugees and asylum-seekers are protected by the Indian Constitution. They have access to health care and their children can go to school,"the UNHCR website report said. 

"It is a special time in relations between UNHCR and the government,"it quoted Antonio Guterres as saying. What more, the report also acknowledges that "India is one of the few countries that is helping the Rohingya by keeping its borders open and allowing them to stay?, and that the UNHCR chief met not only refugees from Afghanistan and Myanmar, but also from distant Somalia during his two-day Delhi trip. 

(The writer is a Senior Fellow at Observer Research Foundation)