VZCZCXRO0913
OO RUEHAST RUEHBI RUEHCI RUEHCN RUEHDBU RUEHGH RUEHLH RUEHNEH RUEHPW
RUEHVC
DE RUEHNE #1955/01 2650249
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 220249Z SEP 09
FM AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 8037
INFO RUCNCLS/ALL SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIA COLLECTIVE
RUEHOO/CHINA POSTS COLLECTIVE
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RUEAEPA/HQ EPA WASHINGTON DC
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 8560
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 8467
RHEHAAA/WHITE HOUSE WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 NEW DELHI 001955 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREF PREL PHUM CH SL IN
SUBJECT: PRM DAS ROBINSON DISCUSSES STATUS OF TIBETAN, SRI 
LANKAN, AND URBAN REFUGEES IN INDIA 
 
Summary 
------- 
 
¶1.  (SBU) PRM DAS David Robinson held meetings with 
representatives from the Dalai Lama's Office, the 
Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), Catholic Relief 
Services' (CRS), and the United Nations High 
Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) during his September 
4th visit to New Delhi.  During these meetings, MEA 
informed DAS Robinson of plans to issue biometric 
identity cards to newly-arrived Tibetan students, monks, 
and nuns and to impose new limitations on all new 
Tibetan arrivals.  Also, CRS shared information on 
comings and goings at Tamil Nadu camps for Sri Lankan 
refugees, and UNHCR described their constrained 
activities in India.  End Summary. 
 
Tibetans: CTA Wants Pilgrim Stays Extended, MEA Does Not 
-------- 
 
¶2.  (SBU) DAS Robinson discussed Tibetan refugee issues 
with Tempa Tsering, the Dalai Lama's representative to 
the Government of India (GOI).  Tsering said the Central 
Tibetan Administration (CTA) was concerned that Tibetan 
newcomers categorized as pilgrims were only given 
permission to remain in India for 90 days.  Tsering 
explained that the GOI accepted only three categories of 
newcomers, all of whom arrived via the UNHCR-managed 
transit process through Nepal.  The categories were 
pilgrims, students, and monks/nuns seeking further 
training.  Tsering acknowledged that the 'pilgrim' 
category was a catchall encompassing everyone -- 
including adults beyond school age and families -- who 
did not fit into the other two groups.  He noted that 
since March 2008, the number of new arrivals had fallen 
dramatically and that most who did manage to leave Tibet 
now no longer wished to return.  Tsering said the CTA 
had asked India to agree to renew the pilgrims' 90-day 
entry permits but that India had not yet agreed. 
Tsering said that, although India had been a "kind and 
generous host," opportunities for Tibetans were very 
limited.  He added that the pressure to go abroad was 
causing some Tibetans to resort to "unethical" actions 
and that this sort of behavior was contrary to the 
essence of being Tibetan.  He said that opportunities 
to go abroad legally were very important to the Tibetan 
community. 
 
GOI Imposing New Requirements 
 
¶3.  (SBU) During a meeting with Sanjay Panda, MEA's 
director for East Asia with responsibility for Tibetan 
refugee issues, he confirmed that the MEA had no 
intention of agreeing to extend the pilgrims' 90-day 
permits.  He explained that the GOI was concerned that 
the Tibetans were spreading out all over India, rather 
than remaining clustered in settlements as the 
government had always intended.  Panda said the GOI had 
just taken a decision to limit this trend and planned 
to require new arrivals staying longer than 90 days 
(students and monks/nuns) to register on arrival and 
renew the registration annually.  Panda said that 
within a year, the MEA plans to issue biometric identity 
cards to newly-arrived Tibetans which will indicate 
status as a student or monk/nun seeking further 
training.  The card will state the completion date for 
the education or religious training -- with the 
expectation that the Tibetan would depart India by 
that date. (Comment:  India only formally acknowledges 
Tibetans who arrived before 1987 as asylees and -- at 
least for the record -- has labeled everyone else as 
being temporarily present for religious purposes. 
Although unlikely to be enforced, this new decision 
reflects India's discomfort with the evolving nature 
of the Tibetan presence in India.  The decision may 
also result in greater vulnerability for Tibetans at 
a time when conditions in Tibet are not conducive to 
return.  End comment.) 
 
Third-Country Resettlement 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Panda also confirmed that the GOI would 
happily support third-country resettlement for Tibetans 
with refugee identity cards -- but for no one else. 
 
NEW DELHI 00001955  002 OF 003 
 
 
Panda declared that India had a long-term understanding 
with resettlement countries that India would not permit 
undocumented Tibetans or those with temporary status 
(students, pilgrims, and monks/nuns) to be resettled 
from India. 
 
Citizenship: Not a Possibility 
 
¶5.  (SBU) When queried as to whether the GOI envisioned 
a path to citizenship for Tibetans, if only for the 
long-stayers, many of whom are now well into their third 
generation in India, Panda's response was an emphatic 
no.  He said that there had been a window of opportunity 
before 2002 for those who arrived by 1987, but that the 
window had shut and would not reopen.  DAS Robinson 
asked if this didn't keep Tibetans from participating 
fully in Indian society and limited their access to 
certain jobs and higher education. Panda confirmed that 
this was true but appeared indifferent.  (Note:  Panda 
appeared even more dismissive of the Chin, who have a 
substantial presence in Mizoram, as well as New Delhi. 
Panda said the Chin were not really refugees, they were 
not "conscious" of government and simply had no concept 
of borders.   End note.) 
 
Sri Lankans: Arrivals Continue, Few Returns 
----------- 
 
¶6.  (SBU) India has provided sanctuary for many years to 
about 78,000 Tamil refugees housed in camps in Tamil 
Nadu.  DAS Robinson met with CRS Country Director John 
Shumlansky and the CRS manager of a PRM-funded pilot 
project to improve housing, water and sanitation in the 
camps.  Due to the sensitive politics surrounding this 
population -- which receives strong support from the 
host state of Tamil Nadu but which is also an occasional 
irritant in India's relationship with Sri Lanka -- India 
has strictly controlled access to the camps and enforced 
curfews and other limitations on the population.  India 
has only permitted international NGOs, including CRS, to 
operate in the camps since 2006 in the wake of the 2004 
Tsunami and continues to limit access to the camps; only 
one of several recent USG requests to monitor the CRS 
project has been granted. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) CRS reported that responsibility for the camps 
is divided geographically, with CRS responsible for 40 
of the 113 camps.  CRS said that although conditions in 
the camps had improved since 2006, many aspects of the 
camps still do not meet minimal international 
standards.  CRS said that their pilot project, briefly 
delayed by bureaucratic obstacles, is now ahead of 
schedule with the community center, water and sanitation 
improvements expected to be completed by December. 
 
¶8. (SBU) CRS said that Tamils continue to arrive from 
Sri Lanka, with 663 newcomers since April 1.  CRS said 
that the Indian Intelligence Bureau had conducted a 
survey in the camps last month and learned that, at 
least so far, there was little interest in returning to 
Sri Lanka.  Many refugees were reportedly anxious about 
the status of their property in Sri Lanka but security 
issues and the problems of the IDPs in Sri Lanka weighed 
against returns.  The CRS project director, a veteran in 
the camps, said she thought that Tamil Nadu authorities 
would support but not press for returns.  Interestingly, 
the project director added that she thought many of the 
long-staying Tamils would choose to remain in India and 
that only those who had arrived since 2006 would be 
anxious to return. 
 
¶9. (SBU) UNHCR confirmed separately that it had assisted 
with only a handful of repatriations to Sri Lanka during 
the past year, but said that there is a coordination 
meeting with the GOI and concerned NGOs planned for 
October in anticipation of increased refugee interest 
in assisted repatriation. 
 
UNHCR and Urban Refugees 
------------------------ 
 
¶10. (SBU) UNHCR Representative in New Delhi Montserrat 
Feixas Vihe informed DAS Robinson that UNHCR has no 
formal status in India and that, as a result, its 
 
NEW DELHI 00001955  003 OF 003 
 
 
activities are constrained by the GOI.  For example, 
UNHCR is not permitted to assist the Tibetan refugee 
population and is only permitted to assist with the 
repatriation of Sri Lankan refugees. 
 
¶11. (SBU) Feixas Vihe explained that UNHCR does provide 
substantial assistance to New Delhi's large urban 
refugee population, consisting of 12,000 acknowledged 
refugees and about 8,000 asylum seekers -- individuals 
who have not yet received status determinations by 
UNHCR.  She said that there had been a dramatic 
increase in the number of urban refugees seeking 
UNHCR's assistance recently, noting that UNHCR had 
received 250 new requests for registration in March 
2008 and 1,250 in March 2009.  Feixas Vihe said that 
although there was no legal framework in India for 
UNHCR's work, the GOI gave de facto recognition to 
UNHCR's status determinations and, even, of the interim 
document UNHCR provides to asylum seekers pending 
formal status determinations -- a process that often 
takes a year or more.  She reported that UNHCR just 
initiated a program in July to outsource the first 
stages of the registration process to an implementing 
partner.  UNHCR anticipates that this will help to 
identify and assist vulnerable asylum seekers much 
more quickly. 
 
Focus on In-Country Assistance 
 
¶12. (SBU) Feixas Vihe outlined UNHCR focuses on 
projects to assist refugees find work in India's 
"informal economy" and on access to Indian education and 
health services.  UNHCR does refer relatively small 
numbers of the most vulnerable urban refugees for 
third-country resettlement but plans to keep the number 
small to avoid a "pull factor."  UNHCR is anxious to 
preserve its existing "humanitarian space" and fears 
that too large a resettlement program could end GOI 
acceptance of UNHCR's presence in India.  DAS Robinson 
probed whether UNHCR's policy limits the urban refugees 
to a permanent life in India's underclass and queried, 
in particular, whether it was appropriate for the 
unaccompanied minors in the urban refugee population. 
 
Comment:  Much Remains to Be Done 
--------------- 
 
¶13. (SBU) DAS Robinson's meetings in New Delhi 
highlighted the challenges that many refugees living in 
India face.  UNHCR is understaffed to meet the needs of 
the urban refugee population and its decision to 
outsource registration, one of UNHCR's basic functions, 
reflects this.  Although UNHCR has found innovative ways 
to assist the urban population, it appears resigned to 
the absence of legal rights for refugees in India. 
Striving for a legal framework for all refugees in India 
should remain an important part of USG communications 
with appropriate Indian government and NGO 
counterparts.  We should also continue to search for 
avenues that increase monitoring access to the Sri 
Lankan camps.  END COMMENT. 
 
This cable has been cleared by PRM DAS David Robinson. 
ROEMER