Sri Lankan Tamil Refugees in India Asha Hans
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Sri Lankan Tamil Refugees in India Asha Hans Background The 8,0241 camp refugees are all regis- from Sri Lanka have been the recipi- tered, as are the 1,714 in special camps. In ents of one of the most advanced A poet once described Sri Lanka as a tear outside camps 27,000 have been regis- systems of education in the world, dropped from the Indian face. Today the tered. Despite threats of deportation and but since 1991,this privilege hasbeen land, awash with unending violence, internment in special camps since 1993, withdrawn. There is no uniformity epitomizes this description. The ravaged the rest remain unregistered. The basic in the camp facilities. Some are good, island and its link to India remains un- problem is the refugees fear of being some are unsatisfactory. In the same brokenby the presence of approximately branded militants and being deported or way, the reception from some locals 200,000 Sri Lankan refugees in India. interned in the special camps. is good while others are hostile. The disaimination and violence by Women have a number of social and the Sri Lankan state against the Tamils The Camps psychological problems that con- throughout the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s When the first wave of refugees entered tinue and increase with time. form the backdrop to this refugee situa- India in 1983, they were divided into tion. As the crisis deepened, small num- three groups. Besides the camp and non- The Militant as Refugee bers of Sri Lankan Tamil educated elite camp refugees, there were the militants With increasing militant activities in the migrated. The majority went to the de- in special camps (Mohandas 1992; state, in March 1990 Tamil Nadu refused veloped West, the rest to neighbouring Karunanidhi 1990). to grant asylum to 1,638 Tamil Eelarn India. The expatriate community The Refugee as Militant: Militant Liberation Organisation (TELO), Eelam swelled and would in time provide sus- leadership has always been elitist National Democratic Liberation Front tenance to the movement. and there is a clear line of distinction (ENDLF) and Eelam People's Revolu- In 1983, the Sinhaleseviolenceagainst between them and the mass of refu- tionary Liberation Front (EPRLF) cadres. the Tamils and Tamil insurgency re- gees. The leadership drew its sup- They were then sent to Malkangiri in the sulted in the displacement of all commu- port and recruited its forces from the state of Orissa. Today only the ENDLF nities in the north and the east. These refugee camps. These camps no members remain in this camp.& 200 induded the Tamils, Tamil-speaking longer exist. They were all dosed remaining refugees are very young. MuslimsandSinhalese settledinthe east. down after the assassination of Rajiv They have came from Trincomalee and India, for security reasons, could not Gandhi, but their legacy continuesto Batticaloa. They are all in their twenties, overlooksuch political developments.Its haunt the refugees. and according to the security guards fears were not unfounded, for the next Noncamp Refugees: These are the posted outside the camp, can dismantle step was the exodus+mssing the nar- refugees who do not receive finan- and assemble a gun in seconds. Accord- row Palk Straits-into India. cial assistance from the government. ing to them they have all been trained by All the refugees who came to India in They are mostly rich businessmen the Indian security forces. They are an 1983 took refuge in the state of Tamil and professionals.They also include army in waiting. When the right moment Nadu, with a population of 55,638,318 a small number of near destitute comes, they will, like their predecessors, (1991 provisional census). By the early young men who are in India to es- escape away in the night. part of 1993, there were an estimated cape from being recruited by the Their lifestyle is similar to that of the 200,000 Sri Lankan Tamils. There is no militants. Since Gandhi's assassina- ordinary camp refugee in Tamil Nadu. exad number available as many do not tion, noncamp refugees have been The reason for providing a view of the register, despite local government or- moved into the camps for security militant camp is to show that the divid- ders. It is easy to remain undetected with reasons or have gone underground ing line between the refugee and the many refugees living outside the camps. for fear of being interned in special militant is very thin indeed when it camps. comes to the rank and file. It is the mili- tant leadership as mentioned earlier Ordinary Camp Refugee: There are which is totally different. The mass of 132 camps in Tamil Nadu and one in militants face the same problems as all Professor Hans taDdvsat the Postgraduate School of Orissa. All refugeesin camps arereg- refugees. The only difference is the fer- Political Scimce, Utkal Uniwsity, Orissa,India. istered. This entitlesthem to govern- vour and the sparkle in the eyes of the This articJe is from herforthcoming monograph ment assistance-cash, shelter, men. Immaculately dressed, they do not a thesamesubject, tobepublishedby York Lanes health facilities, clothing and provi- Press, Toronto. have the mark of a downtrodden hu- sion of essential items. The refugees manity. 30 Refirge, Vol. 13, No. 3 (June1Pa3) Aid From NG09s 30,000 signed the repatriation consent 1992 and May 15, 1992 (UNHCR). forms. Though it has the legitimacy to work No aid is asked of the United Nations India, which had never turned back from Indian temtory and opened its first High Commissioner for Refugees genuine refugees, or used force in repa- office in India, in Madras, it is on a very (UNHCR)or voluntary agenaes for refu- triationblotted its record in this case. The limited mandate. Sunil Thapa, the Repa- gee rehabilitation in India. The central reasons were not related to any formal triation officer who had earlier worked government provides the finances and change in policy towardsrefugees. It was in the UNHCR operation in Sri Lanka, the state, the infrastructure. India does a reaction to the assassination of its Prime said that at that moment their work was not encourage international NGO's to Minister. According to the Sri Lankan confined to interviewing refugees. All work in the camps except the Red Cross refugee it reflected the view that "unless those who signed the returnee forms are (local branch). The only organizations all Ceylon Tamil Refugees were repatri- interviewed in Transit camps to ascer- allowed to work are those run by the ated, the activities of the L'ITE could not tain whether the repatriation is forced ar refugees themselves. In the Sri Lankan be curbed in India." The answer was not voluntary. UNHCR has no financial camps, the largest voluntary organiza- so simple. Increasing militancy and the commitment. All financial help in repa- tion working with the refugees is OFERR assassinbeingaSri Lankan were the cata- triation to the refugee comes from the (organisation for Eelam Refugee Reha- lyst in a complex situation of national Government of India. bilitation). It is run by S.C. politics. It is obvious that the UNHCR pres- Chandrahasan, the son of the late Sri ence has deterred any forcible repatria- Lankan Tamil leader, S.J.V. The Entry of the UNHCR tion. At the same time it cannot be Chelvanayagam. The working of this India is not a signatory to the UN overlooked that of the 2,938 persons organization proves the effectiveness of Convention on Refugees, and the screened by UNHCR only 90 withdrew refugee NGO's vis-a-vis international UNHCR has not been allowed to work in their applications for repatriation NGO's and the need for refugee leader- India. During the Tibetan crisis in 1959, (UNHCR). Thus no general conclusion ship. Refugee NGO's know the needs of and the Bangladesh crisis of 1971, the can be drawn that total repatriation was their people and leadership is a requisite only help taken from UNHCR was finan- forced, a number of refugees did go back to coordinate activities. cial. But in a surprise move on the July 27, voluntarily. UNHCR officials now wait 1992 India signed a Memorandum of in Madras for repatriation to restart but Forced Repatriation Understanding with the UNHCR. the refugees are not interested in going Repatriation of Sri Lankan refugees took Before the entry of the UNHCR, the back. The channels of communication place in 1987 and 1991. The first repatria- Government of India had repatriated open through their network show a very tion took place after the signing of the 23,126 persons between the January 20, confused scene in Sri Lanka. Indo -Sri Lanka Peace Accord in 1987. It was voluntary in nature. After the first repatriation most of the camps were closed down (Public [Refugees] Reha- bilitation Department 1987, p.6), The as- sassination of former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, on May 21,1991, prompted the Indian government to re- patriate the refugee. For a year attempts at forcing the refugee to go back were made. The policy was ambivalent, not uniform and carried out by local officials. In some camps the refugees were ex- plained about the process of repatriation, given the option to stay and forms in Tamil were distributed. In other camps no explanation was offered. Some refu- gees signed the form without realizing what it meant because it was given by the officers who distributed the cash assist- ance. Others who did understand that it was a returnee form signed it under pres- sure from the officer concerned under a threat that if they did not do so, no further assistance would be given.