VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHCG #0051/01 0450318
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 140318Z FEB 08
FM AMCONSUL CHENNAI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 1478
INFO RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI 2975
RUEHCG/ALL SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIA COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS CHENNAI 000051 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FOR SCA/INS AND PRM/ANE (MELISSA PITOTTI) 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREF PREL IN
SUBJECT: FIRST EVER USG VISIT TO INDIAN CAMPS FOR SRI LANKAN 
 
REFUGEES 
 
REF:  2007 CHENNAI 654 
 
¶1.  (SBU) SUMMARY:  On January 30, Consulate staff visited two camps 
for Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in Vellore, Tamil Nadu, marking the 
first official visit to the camps by representatives of the U.S. 
government.  The visit reflects the growing openness of Indian 
government authorities, particularly by Tamil Nadu state government 
officials, to allowing international assistance to improve the 
camps.  The visit demonstrated the wide variance in the conditions 
in the camps:  in Minnoor camp we saw hundreds of refugees living in 
makeshift conditions in a converted factory while in 
Chinnapallikuppam camp the refugees lived in conditions equal to 
their Indian neighbors.  The recent PRM-funded grant to improve 
conditions for Sri Lankan refugees will no doubt help in camps like 
Minnoor.  END SUMMARY. 
 
GOVERNMENT LOOSENS GRIP ON CAMPS; 
ALLOWS FIRST EVER VISIT BY USG OFFICIALS 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Refugees fleeing conflict in Sri Lanka began arriving in 
the Indian state of Tamil Nadu in 1983.  Since then their numbers 
have waxed and waned along with the level of fighting on the island. 
 Currently, there are over 73,000 refugees housed in 115 refugee 
camps spread throughout Tamil Nadu.  With the exception of the 
arrival camp and two high-security camps for refugees suspected of 
involvement with the LTTE, refugees are free to come and go from the 
camps as they please.  But, they are required to appear for regular 
roll call -- generally once a month -- in order to remain eligible 
for certain government benefits including subsidized rice and a 
modest monthly cash payment.  Originally constructed to be temporary 
facilities, the majority of the camps are more than fifteen years 
old. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Since the first arrivals of Sri Lankan refugees in Tamil 
Nadu in 1983, the government has limited access to the camps by 
foreigners and international organizations.  International NGOs 
seeking to assist the refugees were not permitted to access the 
camps until recently.  The Organization for Eelam Refugees 
Rehabilitation (OfERR), whose volunteers are all Sri Lankan 
refugees, was the only NGO the government allowed to work in the 
camps.  UNHCR, which has not been permitted entry, has limited its 
work to facilitating and verifying the voluntariness of return of 
refugees to Sri Lanka.  (NOTE:  India is not a signatory to the 1951 
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or its 1967 Protocol 
or its 1967 protocol.  Further, the Government of India (GOI) has 
not established a system for providing protection to refugees or 
asylum seekers.  The GOI considers Tibetans and Sri Lankans in 
settlements and refugee camps to be refugees, and provides 
assistance to them.  All other populations must register with the 
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which 
operates under the auspices of UNDP, for protection and assistance. 
END NOTE.)  Previous requests by the Consulate for permission to 
visit the camps were rejected until recently.  Our state government 
interlocutors always blamed the central government for denying our 
requests based on the "sensitivity" of the refugee camps. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Tamil Nadu state government officials, likely acting on 
their own, began to ease the restrictions over the past two years. 
First, they allowed foreign NGOs such as the Adventist Development 
and Relief Agency, Catholic Relief Services, and Jesuit Relief 
Services to work in the camps, so long as they did so in partnership 
with OfERR.  Officials in the Tamil Nadu Rehabilitation Commission, 
the department charged with responsibility for the Sri Lankan 
refugees, later broached with Consulate staff the possibility of 
U.S. assistance for projects to improve conditions in the refugee 
camps.  After a July 2007 meeting with a visiting officer from the 
Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) and further 
consultations with Consulate staff, Jothi Jagarajan, Secretary - 
Public and Rehabilitation, Government of Tamil Nadu, informed us 
that his government would be amenable to U.S. grant funds for 
assistance with improving reception facilities, shelter, water, and 
sanitation in the camps.  We believe that the state government 
officials made these overtures without first advising the central 
government. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) In December 2007, PRM selected a proposal submitted by the 
Catholic Relief Services (CRS) to improve reception facilities, 
water, sanitation, and shelter in five refugee camps.  Mindful that 
USG officials had not been permitted to visit the camps in the past 
we decided to test the waters for future monitoring visits to the 
PRM-funded project.  We approached OfERR -- a subgrantee of the 
PRM-funded, CRS-implemented project -- because of OfERR's 
unparalleled access to the camps, which is grounded in its unique 
relationship of trust with the government of Tamil Nadu.  OfERR 
secured a letter of permission from the Rehabilitation Commissioner, 
allowing us to visit two camps in northern Tamil Nadu's Vellore 
 
district.  The January 30 visit to the camp was the first ever visit 
by USG personnel to a camp for Sri Lankan refugees in India.  We 
were greeted by officials from the local district government, as 
well an officer from the Tamil Nadu police's anti-terrorist 
"Q-branch." 
 
MINNOOR CAMP 
------------- 
 
¶6.  (SBU) OfERR selected two camps in Vellore district from opposite 
ends of the quality scale for our visit.  We started with the worse 
off camp.  Minnoor, a camp in name only, is a converted warehouse 
located just off the Bangalore-Chennai highway.  Approximately sixty 
families (about 250 refugees total) are housed in the open floor 
space under the warehouse's roof.  The government moved the sixty 
families to the warehouse after a 2005 fire destroyed their previous 
location, where the residents had individual homes.  Minnoor 
residents expressed great dissatisfaction with their new location 
and repeatedly requested that we assist getting them individual 
housing units. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) The refugees have many complaints.  Living on the 
warehouse floor, the residents have fashioned individual dwelling 
units by cordoning off spaces with plastic sheeting, cloth, and some 
corrugated tin.  Each family has approximately 100 square feet but 
due to the haphazard nature of the cordons, there is substantial 
variation in the size of individual dwelling units.  Gaps in the 
plastic sheeting and cloth, coupled with the close proximity (the 
dwelling units abut each other), result in limited privacy for the 
refugees.  Privacy and sanitation concerns are heightened by the 
fact that there are no toilets or running water.  Camp residents 
must use the limited open space adjacent to the warehouse, much of 
which runs along the busy highway, for toileting.  This situation is 
especially difficult for the female camp residents.  Moreover, the 
lack of proper kitchens leads to a fire hazard with residents 
cooking indoors over open kerosene and wood fires.  One camp 
resident told us that the cloth and plastic partitions used to 
separate the units often catch fire. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) The news is not all bad.  The camp has an onsite nursery 
school, with the government paying for healthy meals for the 
children and the teacher's salary.  OfERR supplements the 
government's contribution by paying the salaries of two teachers' 
assistants.  The camp has regular electricity and there is a shared 
public pay phone which is operated as a micro-enterprise by one of 
the camp's residents.  Camp residents told us that jobs are 
available at local brick kilns.  The jobs involve manual labor and 
pay about four dollars a day.  The residents told us they earn a 
little less than the local Indian employees who work in the kilns. 
 
 
CHINNAPALLIKUPPAM CAMP 
---------------------- 
 
¶9.  (SBU) OfERR explained to us that the second camp we visited -- 
Chinnapallikuppam -- is one of the better off Sri Lankan refugee 
camps in Tamil Nadu.  The camp is a small village located in the 
countryside approximately one kilometer from the main highway. 
Families have individual homes, most of which are solid construction 
with thatched roofs.  The camp is basically indistinguishable from 
the neighboring villages, with the majority of the Sri Lankans' 
houses equal to or only slightly more modest than their Indian 
neighbors.  Camp residents told us that they had amicable relations 
with the neighboring villagers.  When we asked about the 
availability of employment the residents told us that there are 
plenty of jobs for anyone who wants them, ranging from day labor to 
work in nearby shoe factories. 
 
¶10.  (SBU) Chinnapallikuppam camp feels more like a reasonably 
prosperous Indian village than a refugee camp.  All of the houses 
have government-provided electricity, although the residents 
complained of frequent power outages (an increasing problem 
throughout Tamil Nadu).  All but one of the houses we looked into 
had television sets; many had direct-to-home satellite dishes. 
Unlike in Minnoor camp, many of Chinnapallikuppam's residents have 
bicycles, mopeds, and in some cases motorcycles.  One resident 
proudly called us into his house to see his sewing machine, which he 
used for his tailoring business.  The camp also included a variety 
of community resources that would likely not be available in a 
typical Indian village -- including a volleyball court, a 
well-stocked rural first aid center, and a spirulina cultivation 
pond to provide nutritional supplements for nursing mothers -- that 
OfERR sponsored for the refugees' benefit.  Like Minnoor, 
Chinnapallikuppam camp has a government nursery school supplemented 
with assistance from OfERR. 
 
¶11. (SBU) The camp residents were not without complaints. They took 
 
us around the camp pointing out gaps in the tar paper roofs and 
walls of some of the older houses.  (NOTE:  The older tar paper 
houses are the distinct minority.  The majority of the houses are 
mud brick construction.  END NOTE.)  They also took us to the 
village's small electrical switching station, which is housed in a 
small thatched roof hut.  The station is a safety hazard, they said, 
pointing out exposed power switches and manifestly unsafe wiring. 
The villagers explained that there is a severe shortage of water in 
the area due to the presence of many tanneries in the region.  They 
acknowledged that the problem was not limited to their camp, but 
rather all of the villages in the area suffered.  When we asked 
about toilets, they showed us a block of toilets built by OfERR but 
explained that they cannot use them for lack of water.  Gesturing at 
the abundance of empty land that surrounded the camp, one refugee 
said the lack of toilets was not a major hindrance.  Purchased 
drinking water is brought in via tank trucks, stored in plastic cans 
and sold for a small price by a locally run micro-enterprise. 
 
MIXED VIEWS ON RETURNING TO SRI LANKA 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶12. (SBU) The majority of the refugees in both Minnoor and 
Chinnapallikuppam camps have lived continuously in India since the 
mid-1990s, with many of the children never having been to Sri Lanka. 
 In both camps we asked the refugees whether they would like to 
return to Sri Lanka or remain in India.  Their responses were mixed, 
but in both camps the refugees began by saying they certainly would 
not return right now.  They said they would not entertain the idea 
unless there is peace in Sri Lanka and it was evident that none of 
them expected peace anytime soon.  One refugee in Minnoor reminded 
us that previous periods of peace had only ended with further 
bloodshed, including the recent termination of the 2002 Ceasefire 
Agreement.  Based on a show of hands, the refugees we met in Minnoor 
and Chinnapallikuppam camps were evenly split on whether they would 
return in the hypothetical scenario that a lasting peace took hold 
in Sri Lanka.  Those that said they would return said they had left 
much behind and emphasized their connections to the island.  Those 
who prefer staying in India are pessimistic about the prospects for 
peace in Sri Lanka, adding that they have lived in India for much of 
their lives and that their children knew only India. 
 
¶13. (SBU) COMMENT:  The refugees' lukewarm response to the prospect 
of returning to the island primarily reflects the viciousness of the 
ongoing conflict in Sri Lanka.  Given the continued bloodshed the 
very idea of returning seems a pipe dream to them.  But it is also 
stems from the Indian government's relatively warm treatment of the 
refugees.  India is still a poor country but the government has 
ensured that Sri Lankan refugees have equal (or sometimes greater) 
access to basic material necessities as the average Indian.  The 
housing we saw was equal or better than that of many Indians; the 
government provides subsidized rice to the refugees at a cheaper 
price than it gives to Indian citizens.  Tamil Nadu even gives a 
modest monthly payment (known as the "dole") to each Sri Lankan 
refugee family, another benefit poor Indians do not get. 
 
¶14. (SBU) COMMENT CONTINUED:  Despite the fact that India does a 
commendable job of providing for the refugees' material needs, the 
PRM grant is worthwhile in addressing humanitarian gaps.  The 
commitment of USG funds conveys our appreciation for India's efforts 
on behalf of the refugees and exemplifies the increasing partnership 
between the United States and India.  Our interlocutors have, in 
return, expressed their appreciation for the PRM grant and say they 
would welcome future grants.  But more important than the message it 
sends to the Indians is that the grant will improve the lives of 
thousands of refugees by fixing the types of serious water and 
sanitation deficiencies we saw first hand at Minnoor camp.  END 
COMMENT. 
 
HOPPER