Opinion

Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in India remain suspended in limbo – A time to return

Published

12 months ago

2025/10/14

Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in India. (File image courtesy of The Hindustan Times)

The recent arrests of returning refugees under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) voluntary repatriation by state agencies in Sri Lanka on the ground that they fled the island in boats without a valid travel document has drawn the attention of the public to the plight and future of Sri Lankan (Tamil) Refugees the world over but especially those living in camps in the neighbouring state of Tamil Nadu in India. UNHCR has also stopped their assistance to voluntary return as a response to this action by state authorities. Minister Bimal Ratnayake in response to questions in parliament from Tamil MPs has stated that these arrests are not government policy and has welcomed the Tamil refugees returning to their homeland.

Though this statement is welcomed by the refugees and returnees alike, words must be followed up by deeds and should be followed up by concrete action to facilitate return and reintegration. It must be recognised that this population with its skills and knowledge gained from being educated and working productively in Tamil Nadu the state with India’s highest GDP, can contribute to Sri Lanka economic development when provided basic durable solutions to facilitate their return.

Displacement

The July / August 1983 riots / pogrom targeting the Tamil speaking citizens of the Country marked the beginning of the refugee outflow from Sri Lanka to neighbouring India and also to the rest of the word including the West. Most affluent and English educated Tamils moved to Australia, Canada, the USA and European countries including the UK, while the less affluent including government servants, farmers, fishers and trades people fled across the narrow Palk Straits in boats to India. 1983 also marked the escalation of a non-violent struggle for the rights of the Tamil speaking people into the civil war between the Tamil militants and the Lankan armed forces. As the war progressed further waves of refugees fled to India.

In periods of relative peace some refugees returned to Sri Lanka, while some migrated to the west and Australia. At its height there were around 330 refugee camps in Tamil Nadu housing around 1.3, lakh refugees in the camps and another estimated 1 lakh living outside the camps. Today there are still over 100 camps and approximately 55,000 refugees living in the camps, and another estimated 30,000 living outside the camps. In 2009 the war ended with the defeat of the main militant organization the LTTE. It is now 16 years since the war ended and most of these Refugees are still living in camps and their status is undetermined. The recent arrests of refugee returnees in Sri Lanka has heightened the concerns of the Refugees as to their future in their homeland.

A Refugee

A refugee is defined in the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol as “a person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or owing to such fear is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country, or who not having a nationality and being outside the country of his habitual residence as a result of such events is unable or owing to such fear unwilling to return to it.” The Convention envisages a case by case determination of the refugee status. India, Sri Lanka and other South Asian countries are not parties to the Refugee Convention. Hence the large refugee inflows have been allowed to remain in the country on humanitarian grounds and not on the basis of a judicial determination of whether the persons so fleeing come within the definition set out in the Convention. Hence while we refer to these persons as refugees they are not refugees “de facto” and not “de jure” as they fulfill the requirements set out in the Conventions definition.

In the case of de jure refugees they have certain rights in the host country, which are set out in the Convention. They have the right to work the right to education and importantly the right to apply for citizenship of the host country after a certain number of years stay in that country. The principle of non-refoulement, is also incorporated in the Convention. As it is a principle of customary international law it applies even to those countries which are not party to the Convention. It protects refugees from forcible deportation to a country where their life is in danger. We must recognize that many states including Sri Lanka and India have in practice acted with the humanitarian imperative and provided refuge to persons fleeing for their safety.

Legal Status

There is a misconception that just as Sri Lankan Tamils who sought refuge in western countries which are parties to the Refugee Convention have had their cases judicially determined and are in most cases now citizens of or have a permanent status in those countries, those in India have citizenship or legal status. In reality, most refugees in India still live in camps and have no legal status. Legally speaking, they continue to be under the Foreigners Act, foreigners who have entered the country illegally without documents i.e. Visa and passport. This position has been somewhat mitigated by the recent, Immigration and Foreigners (Exemption) order notified by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs. It exempts a set of people from the requirement of a valid passport or other valid travel document and valid Visa to enter, stay and exit the Country. It covers nationals of Nepal, Bhutan, Tibetan refugees, six religious minorities from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh and Sri Lankan Tamil refugees who have entered India before January 9th 2015 and have registered themselves. The order protects the Sri Lankan refugees from forcible repatriation to Sri Lanka.

However, while this order protects this category from forcible repatriation it must be pointed out that they are still classified as illegal migrants. Furthermore, most Sri Lankan refugees are not eligible to apply for Citizenship. They are not eligible for Long Term Visas LTV and hence cannot apply under the Citizenship Act for Indian citizenship by registration or by naturalization by long residence. Sri Lanka is also not included in the countries i.e. Muslim majority countries namely Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh from which minority religious groups namely Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Christians and Parsees, can apply for Citizenship under the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019.

Care by the people and government

In contrast whatever the legal position might be, the people of Tamil Nadu and the Governments of Tamil Nadu and India were sympathetic and welcoming. There were also social benefits provided to the refugees in the camps. The Government provides each family shelter, a dole for their living, food rations were provided. Each family receives 20kgs of rice free and is provided with a ration card to buy their rations such as Sugar, Dhal and Oil from the public distributions system at cheaper prices and have access to free, state healthcare.

Furthermore, refugee children are eligible to study up to class 12 free and receive the benefits which the Indian children receive including free text books uniforms, noon meals, bus passes and even laptops and bicycles. Higher education is also available for those who meet the university requirements and earlier state governments even gave special quotas for refugee students in medical colleges now withdrawn. More recently Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Stalin has been building and renovating the housing in the camps.

Education

As a result of the liberal education policy of the state government, the refugee community has produced around 4,000 graduates including a few medical and several engineering and other professional graduates. This is a remarkable feat for a refugee community in any part of the world and much of the credit goes to the OfERR, an Organization run for and by refugees themselves in India since 1984. This organization through its advocacy with the state and central governments was able to get these advantages for refugee students while also running other programs such as preschools, tuition classes and student councils in the camps along with other charitable institutions thus fostering educational values within the refugee community.

While a few of these graduates have gone on to foreign countries many have returned to Sri Lanka with these qualifications and are involved in gainful employment some even in high positions. While they are not allowed to work in the public sector in India as they are not citizens many have got jobs in the private sector and others are self-employed benefitting and contributing to the Tamil Nadu economy and even contributing income tax. The Sri Lankan Tamils have always valued education and this is one of the reasons they would rather remain in India than return as opportunities for higher education are far less in Sri Lanka.

Caught in Limbo

Sri Lankan Tamils are thus caught in a bind although some of them have been in India for almost half a century from 1983, and have children and grandchildren born in the camps they are still legally speaking illegal migrants who have been allowed to stay in India on humanitarian grounds and who will not be punished for same because of an order made by the Home Ministry. This however could be changed in the future. This is why they can be said to be in Limbo, i.e. a place in Christian theology where Souls who are not eligible for Heaven or Hell are kept waiting indefinitely.

Demand for Indian Citizenship

Due to their long stay in India where many have made their lives and livelihoods and know no other, a growing number of refugees have begun to demand citizenship in India. Both the ruling DMK government and opposition AIADMK party have periodically supported this and demanded citizenship or permanent status for Refugees from the Indian central government. While a few individuals whose parents were entitled to Indian citizenship for different reasons including; they being people of more recent Indian origin or those who were slated for repatriation to India under the Sirmavo Shasthri pact have been successful, this has not materialized for all. An amendment to the law made in the time of former Minister of Finance P. Chidambaram in 1987 during the Congress era of central governance made the conditions for granting citizenship more stringent. Moreover, the grant of citizenship remains a matter of discretion of the central government and the present amendments do not indicate any changes in the position of the Sri Lankan refugees.

Voluntary Return

The Sri Lankan Tamils refugees also have an alternative path which is that of Voluntary Repatriation or Return to their home country Sri Lanka. The 1951 Convention does not explicitly provide a right of Return for refugees but it does recognize the principle of voluntary repatriation as a preferred durable solution.

The Convention encourages return to their country of origin under voluntary safe and dignified conditions. The Right to Return is however a Human Right recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. During the long drawn out civil war in the country there have been intermittent periods of relative peace during which there has been an increase in voluntary repatriation. For example between 1987—1989 some 25,000 refugees were repatriated and in 1992 – 1995 an estimated 54,000 were repatriated to Sri Lanka. Then in 1995 – 2002 around 23,000 voluntarily returned. With the end of the war also people started going back, but some have also since returned.

Obstacle course

Though the refugees may have fled in fear arriving in Tamil Nadu with little, they are now established economically and to an extent socially with lives and livelihoods be it, within the confines of a ‘Sri Lankan Tamil Settlement’ as chief minister Stalin has renamed the camps with new housing. Though consecutive governments in Sri Lanka have made statements welcoming return, the process remains an obstacle course for most with ever changing requirements, regulations and systems before and after return which those who have suffered the process confide as having driven them to despair and raising the question of the state’s (not just successive governments) commitment to the return of Tamil Refugees.

Then there are the economic challenges such as finding suitable jobs for educated and skilled young people especially in the aftermath of Covid and the economic collapse under the Gotabaya regime.

A number of young graduates who had enthusiastically returned during the Yahapalanaya regime and had secured graduate appointments lost them as the Gotabaya regime failed to distinguish refugees graduates cancelling their

appointments from state employment categorizing them among foreign graduates. Currently, there is no government program to provide support by way of housing or livelihoods for returning refugees most of all they are made to feel unwelcome of which an example is the state’s unwillingness to exempt refugees born in India who have past the age 21 to obtain their citizenship certificate from paying a fine of LKR 25,000/- a case of adding insult to injury. The certificate is essential for citizens born outside Sri Lanka to process documentation.

Durable Solutions

In this regard the OfERR organization along with others campaigning for the wellbeing of refugees and returnees in both countries reiterate that the government of India and Sri Lanka must ensure durable solutions to facilitate return. In order to strengthen the trust and confidence of the returnees, guidelines and circulars should be issued to the relevant authorities to ensure dignity of the returning refugees, and provide them due protection of the law instead of arresting them, also facilitate a speedy process for refugees to obtain birth and citizenship certificates among other documents practically required for obtaining travel documents and passports. Set up a process for receiving applications for obtaining National Identity Cards before return, design a suitable program to make use the educational and professional skills acquired by the refugees to enhance their own livelihood and contribute meaningfully to the development of the country; establish a mechanism for speedily obtaining equivalence for educational certificates and professional skills and make arrangements to ferry back their possessions, especially items useful to restart livelihoods the fruit of their labour in India. Formulate guidelines for return of lands, allotment of shelter and livelihood assistance and provide exemption so that returning refugee graduates are not barred access to state employment as foreign graduates. This would be particularly attractive to qualified, job seeking refugee youth. Finally include returning refugees in the welfare programs such as Asvasuma and provide dry food rations for a period in the aftermath of their return.

The right of return, reconciliation and reintegration

President AKD and his government won the hearts and votes of the Tamil speaking peoples of the northern, eastern and other parts of Sri Lanka by advocating a policy of equality and fair play for all ethnic groups and communities in Sri Lanka. The right of return is a basic human right recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The fledgling state of Israel gave a right of return to all Jewish people scattered in the far corners of the earth but sadly continues to alienate and violate the rights of the Palestinian people, the consequences of this can be seen in the conflict which continues even today. It is both an example and a lesson for Sri Lanka to welcome back all those who fled or were forced to flee due to a bitter civil war in a spirit of brotherhood and reconciliation. The time is ripe for him to translate words into deeds welcoming home the long exiled Sri Lankans and ensuring they finally find a place once again in the land they still call home.

* LL.B. Cey; LL.M Cantab; Ph.D Col; Attorney–at-Law.

by Dr Nirmala
Chandrahasan

All News Advertisement

Opinion

‘Outpost of Empire’

Published

11 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

Review

by Colleen Figg, Editor
and Reviewer – Amazon, New Voices Publishing

“Fernando echoes Macbeth with the line, “There is judgment here.” It captures the question running through the novel: can anyone participate in corruption and remain untouched by it? Beneath this satire is a dark story about power and the danger of believing, that someone else will always pay the price.”

Shavindra Fernando’s Outpost of Empire is a political novel set in the fictional country of Lackadasia. At its heart is a strong idea: an exploration of world politics, terrorism and the ways in which powerful countries manipulate smaller ones. Fernando is clearly writing about political issues that matter deeply to him.

The names immediately establish the book’s satirical character. Lackadasia, Burgherbugaria and the various Klowns suggest a world in which the people and places are exaggerated, but the issues beneath the exaggeration are recognisable. The playful language allows Fernando to approach terrorism, religious conflict and political corruption from an unusual angle.

Henry Stockwell is a central character: an ambassador who arrives in Lackadasia presenting himself as a friend of the country. He believes he understands how power works and treats the country, its politicians and its people as pawns on his personal chessboard. In his arrogance, he never doubts that he controls events rather than being controlled by them. This confidence makes him a compelling figure and in him, we explore the workings of political influence and the potential traps contained therein.

As the story develops, Fernando reveals a political world where causes are adopted when they are useful, people are exploited and discarded, and the truth becomes whatever those in power need it to be. Ordinary people suffer the consequences of decisions made far beyond their reach or knowledge, while those making those decisions continue to justify their actions. Even the people who help keep this world running may not be as important or as safe as they imagine.

Stockwell brings this idea into focus. He recognises corruption in others and willingly takes part in it himself, yet he cannot see that he might also suffer its consequences. Ultimately, he thinks his position will keep him safe. He is intelligent enough to understand the game, but not insightful enough to grasp the limits of his place within it. This blindness gives the novel a strong sense of irony.

The satirical approach gives Fernando room to criticise political hypocrisy without turning the novel into a direct political argument. By using fictional countries and exaggerated names, he creates some distance from specific governments and events while still making the larger targets of the book clear. The humour does not take away from the seriousness of the subject; instead, it makes the cruelty and self-interest beneath the political performance stand out more sharply.

Near the end, Fernando echoes Macbeth with the line, “There is judgment here.” It captures the question running through the novel: can anyone participate in corruption and remain untouched by it? Beneath this satire is a dark story about power and the danger of believing that someone else will always pay the price.

I came away feeling that Outpost of Empire is a valuable and thought-provoking book, particularly in today’s political and social climate. It has a distinctive voice, and the questions it raises about power, responsibility and foreign interference remain relevant far beyond the fictional borders of Lackadasia.
About the Author

Shavindra Fernando has worked as a reporter. He read English & Classics at the University of Peradeniya in Sri Lanka, and took International Relations & Ethnic Politics as a Reuter Fellow at the University of Oxford in England. The Vague Poetess (1999)was his first novel.

Opinion

Speaker’s dilemma

Published

11 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

The Opposition, in its wisdom (or perhaps stupidity), has submitted yet another No-Confidence Motion (NCM) against the Speaker of Parliament. Perhaps it hopes to score some brownie points in the eyes of the public, which is hardly indifferent to such developments. Yet, knowing full well that the motion is unlikely to succeed, the exercise may well prove futile — akin to banging one’s head against a solid rock.

Nevertheless, the nearly fifty allegations levelled against the Speaker, whether justified or mere mudslinging, cannot simply be brushed aside. Such allegations may well have a bearing on the individual concerned, particularly where it matters most — his conscience — and few would dispute that possibility.

From a protocol standpoint, the Speaker occupies one of the highest positions in the country, ranking third in the hierarchy of state. He consequently belongs to the uppermost echelons of public life, with acquaintances and associates extending across a wide spectrum of society, including diplomats and other distinguished personalities. Such a position carries with it not merely prestige and privilege, but also an onerous responsibility to uphold the dignity and integrity of the office.

As the guardian of Parliament, the Speaker is expected to maintain standards of conduct, impartiality and discipline that are beyond reproach.

Whether the allegations are justifiable or not may be of little consequence to members of the ruling party, who will undoubtedly defend their colleague to the hilt. Nevertheless, the stigma arising from such allegations may prove difficult to erase, particularly in the eyes of his family, close associates and, ultimately, the voters who placed their trust in him. Of course, it is common knowledge that politics can be a dirty game and that, as Lord Acton famously observed, “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Yet, nothing could be more devastating than a person losing his own soul in the process. On the one hand, stepping down could be construed as an admission of responsibility for the allegations levelled against him. On the other, allowing the No-Confidence Motion (NCM) to proceed could expose him to further public scrutiny and potentially inflict lasting damage on his character, dignity and reputation. Thus, he finds himself caught between two unenviable choices, each carrying consequences that may extend far beyond the immediate political fallout.

The Speaker is therefore confronted with a classic Hobson’s choice, with neither option likely to be without consequences. After all, in politics, there are no permanent friends or enemies—only permanent interests.

WILLIAM

Opinion

How long can Sri Lanka remain silent on its demographic crisis?

Published

1 day ago

2026/10/12

Thilina Walpola

I write this with a sense of profound disappointment, rather than as a critic of the government or any individual public official. For several months, I have been drawing public attention to what I consider one of the most serious long-term challenges facing Sri Lanka—the country’s rapidly changing demographic structure, declining fertility, population ageing and the consequent contraction of the working-age population.

I have written several articles on this subject, believing that informed public discussion could encourage policymakers, academics and relevant institutions to examine the issue before its consequences become irreversible. I went a further step by addressing a detailed letter to the President on 28 August 2026, seeking consideration of a National Demographic Action Plan.

That letter was not merely an expression of concern. It contained practical proposals: long-term demographic projections, assessment of the consequences for labour supply and productivity, examination of declining fertility and delayed family formation, reassessment of education and employment policies, consideration of migration, and the establishment of continuous demographic monitoring.

I deliberately addressed the matter to the highest level because demographic change is not the responsibility of one ministry. It cuts across Finance and Planning, Education, Labour, Health, Higher Education, migration, social protection and national human-resource planning.

Yet, after sending that registered letter, I have not even received an acknowledgement.

This is what troubles me most. I fully appreciate that government has numerous urgent problems to address. Economic recovery, disaster management, employment, education and many other immediate concerns understandably demand attention. But demographic change is different. It operates slowly, almost silently, while steadily narrowing the choices available to future governments.

By the time the shortage of workers, accelerated ageing, increased dependency and the economic consequences of very low fertility become impossible to ignore, remedial action may be enormously more difficult and expensive. What is equally disappointing is the apparent silence of the institutions that should be at the centre of this discussion.

The latest Census has provided the country with an invaluable body of demographic evidence. My own published work has attempted to connect those findings with national development, productivity, education, employment and human-resource planning. On the top of these endeavours, I have seen voluminous articles written by Professor Manori Weerathunga, of the Population Department of the Colombo University, President Population Association of Sri Lanka, and Director Centre for Ageing Studies of University of Colombo. Yet I have seen little evidence of a visible national policy response from the relevant planning and statistical authorities.

Given the multiplicity of the roles and the credentials she possesses, I would strongly urge her to take the bull by the horns and formulate a draft national demographic policy with the expertise of the demographic scientists. This task cannot be delegated to the SLAS or Planning panjandrums. The government should seriously think why the thinktanks are abdicating their mandatory responsibilities and playing a passive role when the country is confronted with burning issues. Are there any sinister plans by disgruntled senior officers to derail the development plans is the question that begs an answer? Alternatively, the government should seriously enlist the support of the IMF or the World Bank, before the demographic bomb explodes!

Are we treating the Census merely as a statistical exercise, rather than as an early-warning the system for national planning? This question deserves a public answer.

I went even further by writing on “Educational Delays, Biological Clock and Sri Lanka’s Fertility Crisis.” My purpose was not to blame the education authorities. I sought to draw attention to the possibility that prolonged delays in university education, examinations, admissions and graduation may interact with delayed family formation and the biological realities of childbearing. I had hoped that this would stimulate examination by the Education sector and other relevant stakeholders.

Unfortunately, I have yet to see any meaningful response. My concern is therefore not whether my own articles have been acknowledged. That is completely irrelevant. The issue is whether the substantive national questions raised in those articles are being examined by anyone in authority.

A citizen who spends considerable time studying a national problem, writing about it publicly and then submitting a constructive proposal to Government should not necessarily expect agreement. But surely an acknowledgement—or better still, a response indicating that the matter is being examined—is not too much to expect.

There is also another dimension which I recently highlighted in discussing Sri Lanka’s transition from an “Age of Longevity” towards an “Age of Experience”. Sri Lanka is simultaneously facing a shrinking younger workforce and an expanding reservoir of older citizens possessing decades of professional and institutional experience.

The demographic challenge, therefore, should not be viewed only through the lenses of pensions, healthcare and elderly care. The country must also ask how the accumulated knowledge, expertise and institutional memory of its experienced citizens can be mobilised for national development.

This is precisely why I find the present silence so difficult to understand. I have no personal or political agenda. I have spent decades working in human resources, productivity and management specialist, and I have chosen in the later stage of my professional life to devote my writing to contemporary national issues which I believe deserve national attention.

Perhaps my concerns are misplaced. Perhaps the government already has a comprehensive demographic strategy under preparation. The relevant institutions have already initiated studies that are not yet public.

If that is the case, I would be delighted to be proved wrong. But if no such comprehensive process exists, then I respectfully ask: how much longer can Sri Lanka afford to remain silent?

The demographic clock does not stop while governments deliberate.

My appeal is therefore not for recognition of my efforts. It is for recognition of the problem. I hope the relevant authorities will prove that the silence I have encountered is not indifference, but merely the silence before meaningful action.

Sri Lanka cannot afford to discover, ten or twenty years from now, that the warnings were visible, the evidence was available, the proposals were made—and nobody acted.

The time to respond to the demographic crisis is now, while choices still remain.

Over to you, the President, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and National Planning, Vice Chancellor of Colombo, Director General of Census and Statistics.

Athula Ranasinghe

Productivity Specialist and Management Consultant