VZCZCXRO4210
RR RUEHAST RUEHBI RUEHCI RUEHDBU RUEHLH RUEHNEH RUEHPW
DE RUEHCG #0317/01 3030503
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 300503Z OCT 09
FM AMCONSUL CHENNAI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2513
INFO RUCNCLS/ALL SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIA COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 CHENNAI 000317 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR PRM/ANE REBECCA KINSEY AND LIANA BROOKS-RUBIN 
 
KATHMANDU FOR MARK WEINBERG AND EILEEN SEN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREF PGOV PTER PHUM SOCI IN CE
SUBJECT: SRI LANKAN REFUGEES IN INDIA UNLIKELY TO RETURN ANYTIME 
SOON DESPITE WAR'S END 
 
REFS:  A) CHENNAI 364 B) CHENNAI 362 C) CHENNAI 051 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary:  Despite the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of 
Tamil Eelam and cessation of hostilities in Sri Lanka, the Sri 
Lankan refugees in Tamil Nadu are unlikely to return to their 
homeland anytime soon.  Release of internally displaced persons 
(IDPs) from confinement in IDP camps is a precondition to the 
refugees even considering return to the island.  Refugee fears of 
human rights abuses in Sri Lanka are another impediment; one that 
will be more difficult to address in the long term because the 
information sources on which the refugees rely stoke paranoia about 
the Rajapaksa government.  Finally, the length of time the refugees 
have spent in India (many have been here for more than 20 years) 
weighs against a quick return.  End summary. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Pol/Econ officer met with a group of 46 Sri Lankan 
refugees to discuss their views on the possibility of returning to 
their homeland now that hostilities on the island nation have 
ceased.  The Organization for Eelam Refugee Rehabilitation (OfERR) 
pulled together a group drawn from the more than 70,000 Sri Lankan 
refugees that live in camps spread throughout Tamil Nadu.  Pol/Econ 
officer spent almost three hours asking and taking questions in a 
candid interchange with the refugees.  While virtually all expressed 
a longing to return Sri Lanka, they are taking the long view:  not 
one raised their hand when we asked if they believed that they would 
be back in Sri Lanka by 2015.  Their answers revealed that the 
conditions facing Sri Lanka's internally displaced Tamil population, 
security concerns, and distrust of the Rajapaksa government all 
stand in the way of the refugee population in India returning home 
to Sri Lanka. 
 
IDP camps are first obstacle 
------- 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Concern for Tamils interned in the IDP camps dominated the 
three hour session.  The refugees described the camps in Sri Lanka 
as "concentration camps" and "prisons."  Those refugees that had 
family members in the camps expressed concern for their well-being. 
They recited a litany of complaints about conditions in the camps, 
including lack of adequate food and water, overcrowding, and poor 
treatment by the Sri Lankan military.  In addition to concern for 
family members in the camps, fear of ending up there themselves is a 
significant bar to return.  Refugees from one camp said they spoke 
to a man from their camp who was sent to an IDP camp after he went 
back to Sri Lanka last month.  Gladston Xavier, an Indian social 
scientist who works closely with OfERR (and a former Fulbright 
grantee), told pol/econ officer "none of the refugees" from the 
north and east of Sri Lanka will consider returning while the IDP 
camps remain open. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) The refugees said they learned about conditions in the IDP 
camps by speaking to people in and around the camps.  One 
participant said that he had received a phone call from his daughter 
in one of the IDP camps earlier in the day.  According to Xavier, 
phones are not permitted in the camps, but a significant number of 
IDPs have them and communicate with their families in India. 
 
Looking to the world to guarantee their safety 
------- 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Xavier, who had led a workshop for the assembled refugees 
that preceded their meeting with pol/econ officer, said that 
emptying the IDP camps is necessary, but not sufficient to induce 
the refugees to return.  He said that the refugees feel that an 
"assurance of safety" and a "durable solution" are preconditions for 
their return to Sri Lanka.  Many of the refugees said that they 
expected the "international community" to guarantee their security 
before they would consider returning to Sri Lanka.  Some refugees 
were more specific about which members of the international 
community they looked to.  One woman said that the government of 
India must "make us believe that it is safe for us to go;" others 
told pol/economic officer that they wanted President Obama and the 
United States military to ensure their safety. 
 
¶6.  (SBU) The perception of widespread human rights violations in 
Sri Lanka animated the refugees' demand for an international 
guarantor of their safety.  A refugee said she feels that nothing 
has changed in Sri Lanka, citing the continued extrajudicial 
killings of Tamils.  One man said that he did not want to risk 
bringing his children to Sri Lanka, where they could be abducted by 
the "white vans."  Another man scoffed at the elections in the 
Northern Province, asking "how can you have an election when 300,000 
people are being held in camps?"  The refugees also mentioned the 
government of Sri Lanka's efforts to "colonize" and "occupy" 
formerly Tamil areas by moving Sinhalese people into them. 
 
 
CHENNAI 00000317  002 OF 003 
 
 
¶7.  (SBU) V. Suryanarayanan, a noted Sri Lanka analyst and member of 
India's National Security Advisory Board, agreed that the insecurity 
of Sri Lanka's Tamil population will deter the refugees from 
returning to the island.  He said that the "importance of security 
to the refugees is unquantifiable," noting that many of the Tamils 
who left Sri Lanka did so for the security of their children.  They 
will not return to the island, he said, until they know their 
children will be safe.  Suryanarayanan was pessimistic about when 
that day would come.  He said that he did not believe President 
Rajapaksa is capable of creating an environment that will draw the 
Tamil refugees back. 
 
Long-standing ties bind some to India 
------- 
 
¶8.  (SBU) The length of time the refugees have spent in India, with 
many of them having arrived in the late 1980s and early 1990s, 
weighs against a quick return to Sri Lanka.  At least three of the 
refugees offered the fact that they have been in India "for more 
than 20 years" as a reason to go slow when considering return to Sri 
Lanka.  Many refugees have married Indian citizens, and Xavier noted 
that women who have married Indian men are especially likely to stay 
in India permanently (but Sri Lankan men who have married Indian 
women are more likely to try to bring their Indian wives back to Sri 
Lanka).  Children born in India to refugees create a tough situation 
for refugee parents.  One woman said her Indian-born children told 
her that they would stay in India even if she went back to Sri 
Lanka, saying "you know about Sri Lanka but we don't know anything 
about it."  On the other hand, a twenty-year old refugee who was 
born in India told pol/econ officer that she wants to go back to Sri 
Lanka because India is only a "temporary place" to her. 
 
Unreliable sources fuel paranoia of Rajapaksa government 
------- 
 
¶9.  (SBU) The unreliable sources the refugees rely upon for news 
about Sri Lanka exacerbate their fears.  In addition to what Xavier 
described as "the same inflammatory" Tamil web sites (referring to 
websites like the pro-LTTE www.tamilnet.com and its Tamil language 
counterparts), the refugees get news from their families on the 
island, who are prone to exaggerating things according to Xavier. 
Absurd statements are accepted as fact:  one man credulously 
asserted that the Sri Lankan military had used nuclear weapons 
during the final assault on Mullaitivu.  Xavier said many of the 
refugees believe that the Sri Lankan military used chemical and 
biological weapons.  Rumors and conspiracy theories flow freely 
through the refugee community.  One refugee said families of 
captured LTTE fighters have been rounded up and disappeared. 
Another claimed that the Sri Lankan army was not providing 
sufficient food to the IDPs. 
 
UNHCR says resettlement will take time 
------- 
 
¶10.  (SBU) Vidjea Barathy, Associate Repatriation Officer, United 
Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR Chennai), whose office 
oversees the process of resettlement of Sri Lankan refugees, told 
post that approximately 500 refugees have chosen to return this 
year.  Barathy cautioned that this figure only includes official 
repatriations of Sri Lankans who have officially registered as 
refugees, but does not include returns from the substantial 
population of Sri Lankans living in India without official refugee 
status.  Barathy added that there has been a modest increase in 
returns since hostilities on the island ceased in May.  "But it is 
too early to tell whether this is a trend," he said.  All of the 
2009 repatriations have been to the Eastern province because the 
UNHCR does not send people back to the North except in cases of 
terminally ill refugees. 
 
¶11.  (SBU) Barathy does not expect a significant amount of 
resettlement of Sri Lankans in the near term.  "There will be no 
major movement before mid-2010 at the very earliest," according to 
Barathy, with the refugees waiting to see the IDP camps closed and 
how the returning IDPs are treated.  Barathy believes the return 
will be "phased," with recent arrivees returning sooner and 
long-term refugees waiting longer.  The process will "take some 
time, all 70,000 of them are not going to go back at once."  Barathy 
said that the refugees' assessment of the safety situation and their 
economic prospects will determine whether they return.  He believes 
that an active role by the Government of India will be crucial; the 
refugees need "some level of assurance" that India will be 
monitoring how the majority Sinhala community treats them when they 
are back in Sri Lanka. 
 
Comment:  no rush to return 
------- 
 
CHENNAI 00000317  003 OF 003 
 
 
 
¶12.  (SBU) Comment:  Although the war in Sri Lanka is over, the 
refugee community is not likely to return to Sri Lanka in 
substantial numbers any time soon.  Information flows freely between 
the island and Tamil Nadu, and the refugees do not like what they 
are hearing from their fellow Tamils back home.  Freeing the IDPs is 
necessary, but not sufficient on its own to convince the refugees 
that it is time to go home.  Mistrust of the Rajapaksa government's 
human rights record runs high, leading to perhaps unrealistic 
expectations that the international community will actively 
facilitate their safe reintegration in Sri Lanka.  Their long period 
of refuge -- many of the Sri Lankans have spent most or all of their 
lives in India -- has firmly rooted them in India.  India's 
government, especially the state, has been a generous host.  Tamil 
Nadu generally provides the refugees the same programs and services 
it does to its own citizens, including subsidized food, basic health 
care, and education.  The state even provides each refugee with a 
modest cash transfer payment each month, something it does not 
provide to its own citizens.  Post believes that the vast majority 
of the refugees are here to stay for at least a few years, and that 
a substantial number would stay permanently if given the 
opportunity.  End comment. 
 
DALTON