Sri Lankan Refugees: Time for a Policy Reset?
Exiting refugee status, getting back dignity
Context: Two seemingly unrelated incidents — one in India’s Supreme Court and the other at Palaly Airport in northern Sri Lanka — have reignited debate over the fate of nearly 90,000 Sri Lankan Tamil refugees who have been living in Tamil Nadu for over three decades.
About the Incidents
- Supreme Court Ruling: The Court refused to overturn a Madras High Court decision from 2022, which had reduced the sentence of a refugee convicted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) from 10 years to seven.
- The convict, having completed his term, appealed to the Supreme Court for permission to stay in India, citing personal reasons.
- However, the Court declined, remarking that “India is not a dharamshala” (a shelter for all), an observation that stunned refugee communities and rights advocates.
- Indian courts have historically shown empathy toward refugees — this statement marked a sharp rhetorical departure.
- Septuagenarian Refugee: In the second case, a septuagenarian Sri Lankan refugee, who returned voluntarily to Sri Lanka with UNHCR facilitation, was detained on arrival in Jaffna for having left the country decades ago “without valid documents.”
- His detention triggered outrage and was eventually reversed after Sri Lankan Transport Minister Bimal Rathnayake promised swift policy review, acknowledging that the detention stemmed from automatic legal application rather than deliberate targeting.
1951 Refugee Convention and India
India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol. Experts suggest concerns over the Convention’s perceived Euro-centric nature and the strain that formal obligations could place on India’s resources and infrastructure, given its location amid regional instability and porous borders. Refugees are governed under general immigration laws, particularly the Foreigners Act, 1946, which does not distinguish between refugees and other foreigners. Despite not being a party to the 1951 Convention, India is a signatory to other key international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention Against Torture (CAT), which require certain protections for refugees.
Contrasting Refugee Policies: Sri Lankan Tamils vs Tibetans
- India hosts two significant refugee communities — Sri Lankan Tamils and Tibetan refugees. While the Tibetan population numbers around 63,000, and has been present longer, India’s approach to the two groups has differed significantly.
- Tibetan refugees have been given local integration rights, distributed across states like Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Arunachal Pradesh, and Ladakh.
- In contrast, Sri Lankan refugees have remained largely confined to Tamil Nadu, with only a few settled in Odisha. Most continue to live in rehabilitation camps, originally meant to be temporary.
- Unlike the Tibetans, who benefit from the Tibetan Rehabilitation Policy (TRP) of 2014, there is no national refugee policy for Sri Lankans — despite their larger numbers and longer stay.
- The Ministry of Home Affairs consistently frames Sri Lankan refugees with a view towards eventual repatriation, unlike the language used for Tibetans.
- The TRP outlines access to welfare schemes, employment, and educational opportunities, rights that are inconsistently extended to Sri Lankan Tamils.
Employment Challenge: Educated but Unemployed
- Although nearly 500 Sri Lankan refugee youth in Tamil Nadu have completed engineering degrees, less than 5% have secured jobs in their fields.
- Private firms, particularly in the IT sector, are hesitant to employ them due to their legal status.
- A national refugee policy — even one that doesn’t alter India’s long-standing position on eventual repatriation — could offer structured access to education, employment, and livelihoods.
- This would empower thousands of capable individuals to contribute productively to the Indian economy while preserving their dignity.
Repatriation vs Integration: Seeking Durable Solutions
- With over 40 years having passed since the first waves of refugees arrived in 1983, India must confront a crucial question: How long will rehabilitation camps remain a permanent solution?
- These camps still house two-thirds of the refugee population in Tamil Nadu. For those who have spent their entire lives in India, the “refugee” label is a burden, not a choice.
- The future of Sri Lankan refugees must be determined through collaborative policymaking — involving India, Sri Lanka, UNHCR, and refugee representatives.
- The twin approaches of voluntary repatriation and local integration should be seen not as contradictory but complementary paths toward a sustainable and dignified future.
The theme for World Refugee Day 2025 — “Solidarity with Refugees” — rings hollow unless translated into meaningful policies that ensure freedom, dignity, and opportunity. For Sri Lankan Tamils in India, real solidarity means access to jobs, education, and an end to the uncertainty of life in limbo.
