Context

• Two recent developments, one in India and another in Sri Lanka, have rekindled debate around the long-standing presence of Sri Lankan refugees in Tamil Nadu.
• While appearing unrelated, these incidents sharply illustrate the core dilemma that continues to shadow refugee policy in India: whether to repatriate or integrate those displaced by past conflicts.
• These cases not only highlight legal and humanitarian tensions but also expose inconsistencies in India’s approach to refugee management.

The Legal and Moral Crossroads: Supreme Court's Remark and Judicial Attitudes

• The first development involves the Indian Supreme Court's refusal to intervene in the Madras High Court's decision that reduced the sentence of a Sri Lankan refugee convicted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
• The convict, having completed his sentence, sought to remain in India, citing personal grounds.
• However, the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, reinforcing the High Court’s directive that he must leave the country.
• What shocked many was the oral observation made by the Bench, that India is not a Dharamshala (free shelter) for refugees worldwide.
• This comment appeared to deviate from India's historically empathetic stance toward displaced communities.
• Indian courts have often leaned toward humanistic interpretations in refugee cases.
• This shift in tone raises questions about whether security concerns and political expediency are now overriding humanitarian considerations.

Sri Lanka’s Detainment of a Returnee: A Cautionary Tale

• In a parallel incident, a septuagenarian Sri Lankan refugee who voluntarily returned from Tamil Nadu was detained by Sri Lankan authorities on arrival, allegedly for leaving the country without valid documents.
• This occurred despite the involvement of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in facilitating his return.
• Though he was eventually released after public outcry, the episode exposes the risks faced by refugees considering repatriation, even under official supervision.
• The Sri Lankan government’s response, specifically that of Transport Minister Bimal Rathnayake, revealed that such detentions are the result of outdated legal frameworks that treat voluntary repatriates as criminals.
• His assurance of immediate policy change offers hope, but it also underscores the need for systemic reform in both host and origin countries.

India’s Contrasting Policies: Tibetan vs. Sri Lankan Refugees

• A deeper issue lies in the stark policy disparity between the treatment of Tibetan and Sri Lankan refugees.
• While Tibetans, numbering around 63,000, have enjoyed relative freedom and formalised government support through the 2014 Tibetan Rehabilitation Policy (TRP).
• No such framework exists for the nearly 90,000 Sri Lankan refugees, the majority of whom reside in Tamil Nadu.
• Tibetans are spread across several Indian states and enjoy access to government schemes, education, and employment in both public and private sectors.
• In contrast, Sri Lankan refugees, most of whom live in rehabilitation camps, face barriers to integration.
• Despite hundreds obtaining professional degrees, employment opportunities remain scarce due to the absence of legal recognition and corporate hesitancy.
• This situation underscores the urgent need for a parallel policy that enables Sri Lankan refugees to pursue dignified livelihoods.

Policy Recommendations: The Case for Durable Solutions

• India’s longstanding default position has been repatriation, the belief that Sri Lankan refugees should eventually return home.
• However, with over 40 years having passed since the first arrivals in 1983, this stance appears increasingly untenable.
• Many refugees have spent their entire lives in India; for them, Sri Lanka is a distant and unfamiliar land.
• At the same time, Sri Lanka’s own legal framework continues to penalise those who left during the civil war, making repatriation risky and, in some cases, inhumane.
• A comprehensive and inclusive policy, modelled perhaps on the Tibetan example, would offer a more durable solution.
• It could allow refugees to participate meaningfully in Indian society, access employment, and pursue education without the perpetual uncertainty of forced return.
• This does not preclude repatriation for those who choose it; rather, it enables choice, agency, and dignity.

Conclusion

• As the world observes World Refugee Day (June 20) under the banner of solidarity with refugees, India must confront the contradictions in its refugee policy.
• The continuation of refugee camps for decades, no matter how well-managed, erodes the human dignity of those forced to live within them.
• A balance between repatriation and local integration negotiated in consultation with all stakeholders including Sri Lanka, offers the only humane and realistic path forward.
• India has the opportunity to reaffirm its humanitarian legacy, not by turning away those who seek refuge, but by ensuring they can live with honour while they are here.