Exiting refugee status, getting back dignity

The Hindu

5 hours ago

Two recent unrelated developments, one in India and another in Sri Lanka, have brought into focus the issues of repatriation and the local integration of Sri Lankan refugees who have been living in Tamil Nadu for over 30 years.
First, the Supreme Court of India had refused to interfere with the verdict of the Madras High Court, which, in 2022, reduced the sentence of a refugee from 10 years to seven years — he had been convicted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The convict, who had given an undertaking to the High Court that he would leave India on completion of the sentence, had approached the Supreme Court with the intent of settling down in the country, citing personal reasons, as he had completed the sentence. In its hearing, the two-judge Bench made an oral observation that 'India is not a dharamshala (free shelter)' to entertain refugees from all over the world. It was a remark that came as a shock to refugees as Indian courts, on many occasions, have been empathetic towards them.
In the other development, a septuagenarian refugee, who returned to Sri Lanka on his own after spending years in Tamil Nadu, was detained by the authorities, much to his dismay, on his arrival at Palaly airport in Jaffna, the headquarters of the Northern Province of Sri Lanka. The reason was linked to the ground that he had left the country 'without valid documents'. He had been detained despite the Chennai office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees facilitating his repatriation.
He was released after a furore. Sri Lanka's Transport Minister and the ruling Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP)'s senior leader Bimal Rathnayake responded swiftly by stating that the remand was due to 'the automatic application' of law to persons who had emigrated through a 'non-legal' port. He promised the community of immediate action to change the policy.
Different circumstances, different policies
Close to 90,000 Sri Lankan refugees have been in Tamil Nadu, within and outside rehabilitation camps. Though Tibetan refugees, numbering around 63,170 people, have been in India longer, there are at least a couple of differences between the two. In respect of Sri Lankan refugees who came to India between July 1983 and June 2012, organised repatriation took place till March 1995. But there has been no such exercise in the case of the other category, as the influx of the two groups of refugees was under entirely different circumstances. Unlike Tibetan refugees who have been settled in different States including Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Arunachal Pradesh and the Union Territory of Ladakh, almost all the Sri Lankan refugees have been settled in Tamil Nadu, barring some in Odisha.
In fact, the fundamental difference between the two can be seen in the manner in which the Union Ministry of Home Affairs handles the matter in its annual reports. In the case of Sri Lankan refugees, the ultimate objective is of repatriation to Sri Lanka, while such language is not used with respect to the Tibetans. In the case of the Tibetans, the Union government formulated the Tibetan Rehabilitation Policy (TRP) in 2014, with no such document for the other group despite its larger numbers. The TRP also talks of an extension of welfare schemes to the community, an aspect that the Tamil Nadu government has been practising for years with respect of Sri Lankan refugees.
As the policy document lays down a framework for productive engagement of the refugees — either under government schemes including the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme or in the private and non-government sector in chartered accountancy, medicine and engineering — similar means can be extended to the Sri Lankan refugees. Even though nearly 500 young refugees in Tamil Nadu have got engineering degrees, hardly five per cent of them have found jobs in their disciplines as private companies, especially IT firms, are reluctant to employ them. If the Union government, without disturbing its traditional position on the repatriation of Sri Lankan refugees, can formulate a policy for this category of refugees too, they would find the move beneficial.
Live up to the theme
As it is over 40 years since the first batch of refugees came from Sri Lanka, it is time that the larger society debates how long the rehabilitation camps, which account for two-thirds of the total refugee population in the State, will continue to be maintained in the country. However well intentioned governments at the Centre and in the State may be, the tag of being a refugee is not an aspect that a person with self-respect can cherish.
Repatriation and local integration should form part of a package of durable solutions to be worked out by the authorities in consultation with all the stakeholders including Sri Lanka. The focus this year on World Refugee Day (June 20) is 'solidarity with refugees'. It is a theme that can be meaningful to them only if they lead their lives with honour.
[e-mail]