Abstract
I investigate the re-integration prospects of two refugee groups in the post-repatriation context. I provide an appraisal of the political statuses of returnee-refugees and assess the belonging in ‘home’ and homeland in Vavuniya, Mannar in Sri Lanka and Khagracharri in Bangladesh. I contend that though ‘home’ and homeland are significant components in the refugee narrative in exile and facilitate repatriation, certain constraints prevent mechanisms of accommodation in countries of origin, thereby reducing the refugees once again to the status of returnees in their countries of origin.
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 official term for this is internally displaced person, but I refer to these groups as returnee-refugees.
- 2.
The most salient features of the 1997 Accord/Treaty are: decommissioning and deposit of arms by JSS fighters; rehabilitation of the ex-combatants; rehabilitation of the international refugees and internally displaced people; dismantling of non-permanent military camps and return of soldiers to their regular barracks within cantonments and other specified permanent garrisons; self-government through district and regional councils and indigenous institutions; land and resource rights; and recognition of the cultural identity of the indigenous people and their laws and customs.
- 3.
According to the CHT Accord, Part D addressed the issue of rehabilitation, general amnesty and other matters, such as the repatriation of the Chakma refugees, the rehabilitation of internally displaced Chakma people, the provisions for the settlement of land with the landless Chakmas, the formation of CHT Land Commission and the settlement of land disputes.
- 4.
Interview with the refugee in Pessalai welfare centre, June 2002.
- 5.
According to an official in the UNHCR office, Colombo, ‘the need of the hour was to provide for the repatriation etc., and there were no funds available to take care of returnees over a prolonged period of time.’
- 6.
Interviews with members in Dhaka, August 2002.
- 7.
The empirical chapters discuss the CFA/ ISGA and the Peace Accord in detail.
- 8.
The MRRR provided emergency relief and housing, built socioeconomic structures and provided sustainable income activities along with sense of dignity to resettled or relocated homes.
- 9.
These are official figures as stated by the Minister of RRR, Dr. Jayalath Jayawardena, in the forward of the mission statement and reiterated during an interview in Colombo, June 2002.
- 10.
MRRR, Progress and Performance (2001–2002). Since the formation of the new government, there has been an increase in total amount given to refugees as resettlement packages. The Unified Assistance Scheme was revised in 2003. The housing grant was increased from 50,000 rupees to 75,000 rupees. As of 2004–05, the scheme had undergone further changes, which raised the allowance to 175,000.
- 11.
Ponnthoddam Units 2, 8 and Sithamparapuram: research sites where interviews were conducted in June 2002.
- 12.
As indicated during several interviews with returnee-refugees in camps in Pessalai, Vavuniya and Mannar. June 2002.
- 13.
The respondent interviewed in Pessalai was residing in welfare camp for a period of nine years. During the interview on June 2002, the respondent indicated, ‘I have been starving here for a long time’. When asked whether the government had forgotten about their needs, she concurred and pointed out, ‘I shouldn’t have returned from India’.
- 14.
Almost all donor assistance in Sri Lanka is related to peace-building and humanitarian assistance, and some dealt with rehabilitation, with the exception of major donors such as the USAID, UNDP and WFP. Japan and the Asian Development Bank provide loans and grants in the areas of infrastructure, reconstruction and rehabilitation, industrial development, agriculture, health, human resources, transportation and power sector reform. In the area of democracy and good governance, the World Bank has a project supporting legal reform, while the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden and Norway have programmes related to conflict, human rights, civil society and media development. USAID has a comparative advantage in a number of areas, including private sector development, trade capacity building, participatory governance, and providing a quick and flexible response for immediate reconstruction and rehabilitation.
- 15.
As mentioned in an interview with Shantu Larma, August 2002. Mr. Larma discussed the manner in which the Bangladesh state attempted to destroy the ethnic balance in the CHT region. The Government of Bangladesh was autocratic in imposing a particular kind of nationalism based on religion, which devastated the Pahari hope of any political representation based on their indigenous identity.
- 16.
The Regulation Act of 1900, which was promulgated in May 1900, comprised a package of rules and regulations for the administration of CHT area. It aimed to protect the rights, customs, traditions, local practices, peculiarities, and prejudices and thus preserve the cultural identity of hill people, who belong to a distinct Buddhist community. The three chiefs or Rajas are responsible for collecting revenues on behalf of the British. For the hill people, the Regulation was consequently amended to represent a particular historical compromise between rights of the tribal and outside political control. The real significance was in relation to land. Rule 34 of the Regulation substantially restricted any possession of land by outsiders in the hill tracts but failed to ban it totally, since an outsider could acquire land for plantation on commercial basis [Rules 34(b)], Residential purpose [Rule 34(d)] and Commercial purpose [Rule 34(e)]. But migration from outside was prohibited: under Rule 52, no hill man could enter or reside in the CHT without obtaining a permit from the Deputy Commissioner.
- 17.
The National Committee (NC) on CHT created in 1987 had five rounds of meetings between the government and the PCJSS between 1987 and 1988. The PCJSS had made some minimum demands based on a five-point charter of demands consisting of (a) autonomy for the CHT with its legislature and constitutional recognition of the Jumma [Hill] nation’s right to self-determination; (b) removal of non-tribal settlers who entered the CHT after August 1947; (c) withdrawal of Bangladeshi security forces from the CHT; (d) retention of the CHT Regulation of 1900 and a constitutional provision restricting any amendments to it; and (e) deployment of the UN peacekeeping force. However, these demands were rejected by the Government of Bangladesh, which stated the conditions violated the spirit of the Constitution of Bangladesh. The Bangladesh government made a counter-proposal and encouraged the National Committee to prepare a nine-point peace formula based on the views of the tribal people. The structure of the proposal was based on devolution of power and political representation of the Paharis in the political structure of Bangladesh. It emphasized the creation of district councils with some legislative powers (Shelly 1992). The PCJSS later rejected the scheme and continued to agitate for regional autonomy as one of the cardinal point of reference.
- 18.
The Paharis did not have land deeds to prove claims. Based on customary land rights, Paharis had the right to any piece of land. Most of the land was seen as collectively owned by the chief, i.e., the head of each ethnic community, in the CHT.
- 19.
The Bangladesh army was stationed in various parts of CHT region including Rangamati, Banderban, Khagracharri, Kaptai and Sabautali. There was constant presence of police personnel in addition to the naval base at Dhalyachhadi for the Kaptai lake area. The intense military presence in CHT was viewed by the hill people as a serious violation of the Regulation Act of 1900 and its basic tenets that the hill people’s culture and heritage were to be protected by the Government of Bangladesh. The CHT region was heavily militarized by the Government of Bangladesh to provide security to settler population.
- 20.
Brian Eads, ‘Massacre Feared in Bangladesh’, The Observer, 15 March 1981.
- 21.
According to one refugee interviewed in Pessalai camps, the government had forgotten them. She was nearly 80 years old and was part of the early 90s repatriation from India. In the interview, the refugee alleged that initial food and financial assistance provided to help in relocation did not last long, as these refugees had no place to which to return. After spending most of their resources in day-to-day expenditures, this refugee was now starving. Also, the world food programme that took care of them had stopped financial assistance. During the interview she indicated that she had not eaten for nearly a week.
- 22.
As mentioned during interviews Vavuniya, June 2002.
- 23.
As mentioned during interviews with returnee-refugees in Pessalai, June 2002.
- 24.
HSZ are areas demarcated beyond the perimeters of the Security Forces camps. Civilian movement is prohibited in these areas.
- 25.
‘Unauthorized persons’ include the following: another person from the same areas, an IDP, a person occupying on the authority of armed, political groups or armed political groups who may be occupying the premises.
- 26.
They were given 390 rupees every 15 days; 24 kg rice; cash 75 every two weeks; elders were given 60 rupees. Cash or dole money, as it was popularly called, also varied in different camps in Sri Lanka.
- 27.
As determined by the Government of India in a directive to the Ministry of RRAN, 2002.
- 28.
As stated during interviews by members of the Refugee Welfare Association, Provakor Chakma, President, Refugee Welfare Association, Rangamati, CHT; Poritosh Chakma, Chairman of Union Parishad, Babachari, Dighinala (Khagracharri); Kubendra Lal Chakma, Convener, Ration Distribution; Anando Bikas Chakma, Ex-Chairman; Babuchachara Upazila, Dighinala; Utpal Chakma, member of Upazila. These members of Upazila along with Upendra Babu discussed the peace process of CHT.
- 29.
Daily Ittefaq, 29 August 2003.
- 30.
According to ZOA, there are 124 families whose children are living without any birth certificate. Some of them have been issued documentation from India, which are invalid in Sri Lanka. ZOA has been communicating with the Sri Lanka consular service in Tamil Nadu to expedite the process of recognition. So far, about 84 cases have been retroactively approved by the consular services in Tamil Nadu.
- 31.
Based on data collected from ZOA and conversation with Raga Alphonsus, Programme Manager, Mannar. The internal communication between ZOA and the Sri Lanka High Commission-Chennai, the Deputy High Commissioner, dated 26 March 2002, stated, ‘action regarding these issues would be undertaken at the earliest’.
- 32.
In an interview in Khagracharri, 19 August 2002, Member of the Parliament Upendra Chakma expressed his anguish at the non-implementation of the Accord.
- 33.
Almost 80% Tamils and Chakma camp refugees (based on interviews conducted in Tamil Nadu and Tripura in India), accepted that the period of stay in exile was temporary. Since they lived in isolation and in camps, they also agreed that ‘home’ was either Sri Lanka or CHT.
- 34.
As mentioned in an interview with the government agent, Mr. Vishwalingam, Vavuniya, June 2002.
- 35.
During interviews in the welfare camp in Vavuniya, in June 2002, three interviewees alleged that despite residing in welfare camps for longer periods of time, some were given preference to relocate as opposed to others. These interviewees asserted that they belonged to the eastern parts of Sri Lanka and were unable to relocate in the Mannar region. These interviewees who were residing in welfare camps in Vavuniya would have taken the opportunity to relocate in Mannar but were sidestepped, since they ‘originally belonged to eastern parts of Sri Lanka’. The relocated returnee-refugees had lived for lesser duration in comparison to the interviewees.
- 36.
In an interview in Pessalai camp in northern part of Mannar, an elerly woman asserted, ‘we have been living in a trapped situation for a long time’. Having lived in the camp for nearly six years, the returnee was ready either to return to India or at least to stay until a peaceful solution could be found to resolve the Tamil conflict. During the interview I asked her whether the problem of Tamils in the east could be resolved with a peaceful solution to the conflict. K’Amma asserted that most of the refugees had been sent back from India due to the ceasefire and having a peaceful solution to the conflict was a factor in the refugees returning to their place of dislocation.
- 37.
Interviews with groups of Tamil refugees after their return from Vanni, June 2002. These refugees are presently residing in Sithampapuram welfare camps in Vavuniya.
- 38.
In conversation with the members of Priti faction of PCJSS, Dhaka, August 2002.
- 39.
As mentioned by various interviewees in Gumudpundi camp, Tamil Nadu, July 2002.
- 40.
The open relief camp in Pessalai was in abysmal condition. Most of the hay rooftops had disappeared and failed to provide returnees any protection against natural calamities. The returnees stated that they had to forgo food.
- 41.
Refugees located in uncleared areas asserted that government was ‘lax’ in sending relief and the LTTE managed to provide them with basic amenities. Since the ceasefire in 2002, refugees were allowed to move around from cleared to uncleared land but needed to get a pass from higher authorities (LTTE in uncleared areas; and government officials in cleared areas). But the pass system was a difficult and tedious process.
- 42.
The welfare centres were located in Vavuniya district, which accommodated 16,624 persons. These camps were Poonthoddam WC 1 (888 persons); Poonthoddam WC 2 (838 persons); Poonthoddam WC 3 (800 persons); Poonthoddam WC 4 (799 persons); Poonthoddam WC 5 (1027 persons); Poonthoddam WC 6 (728 persons); Poonthoddam WC 7 (836 persons); Poonthoddam WC 8 (810 persons); Poonthoddam WC 9 (693 persons), Nelukulam (789 persons); Sanasa (91 persons); Sithamparapuram (5834 persosn); Adppankulam (1439 persons); and Kovilpuliyankulam (1061 persons). Report prepared by UNHCR Office, January 2002.
- 43.
UNHCR Field Report, 2002.
- 44.
Interview with returnee, Sithamparapuram camp, Vavuniya, June 2002.
- 45.
As stated during interviews, Vavuniya, Sri Lanka, June 2002.
- 46.
There were allegations that the Government of Sri Lanka had stationed police in order to prevent returnees from leaving the premises of welfare centres.
- 47.
Some interviewees in Sithamparapuran welfare centre alleged that the Government of Sri Lanka had forced them to visit the conflict-ridden areas of Trincomalee, though they were reluctant to do so. They had to accept the government decision and enter the LTTE-dominated areas. But upon entering, they realized that their houses were in shambles, and they had no means of earning a living.
- 48.
According to Chittagong Hill Tracts Commission, nearly 1339 repatriated families have not been returned their paddy lands; 942 families have not been returned their paddy land; nearly 774 families have not been returned their gardens. There were 40 villages that were still under the possession of settler population. The initial support given to Chakma refugees was cash of Taka 15,000 and two bundles of CI-sheets. All families were provided rations for nine months, but there seemed to be no provisions for short-term loans, etc., that would help refugees to become self-reliant. It appeared that landless peasants received Taka 3000 for a dairy cow, but people who had prior loans were exempted.
- 49.
As stated during various interviews, Milonpur and Dighinala in Khagracharri, CHT, August 2002.
- 50.
As stated by few participants in a school in Dighinala, Khagracharri, August 2002.
References
Allen, T. (Ed.). (1996). In search of cool ground: War, flight and homecoming in northeast Africa. London: James Currey Ltd.
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.
Debbarma, P., & George, S. (1993). The Chakma refugees in Tripura. New Delhi: South Asian Publishers.
Eads, B. (1981, March 15). Massacre feared in Bangladesh. The Observer.
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.
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.
Mohsin, A. (2003). The Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh. London: Lynne Publishers.
Report on Programmes and Performance. (2001–2002). Ministry of resettlement rehabilitation and refugees.
van Schendel, W. (1992). The invention of the ‘Jummas’: State formation and ethnicity in southeastern Bangladesh. Modern Asian Studies, 26(1), 95–128.
Shelly, M. R. (1992). The Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh: The untold story. Dhaka: Centre for Development Research.
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). Issues of Inclusion and Citizenship in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh: A Comparative Narrative. In: Refugees, Citizenship and Belonging in South Asia. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0197-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0197-1_6
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)