Even after more than 17 years since the end of the brutal three-decade war in Sri Lanka’s Northern and Eastern Provinces, the plight of the Tamil people who lost their ancestral lands – living as refugees, with relatives, or in rented houses – has not ceased.
Recently, members of the ‘Voice of the Landless People of North-East’ submitted a memorandum to Prime Minister Harini Amarasuriya during her visit to attend an educational financial assistance event for university students at the Jaffna District Secretariat.
That memorandum is not merely a petition of requests; it is a cry for justice that has been denied for decades. Countless petitions have been submitted to government leaders and officials over the years on behalf of the displaced people. It has become a routine drama for every leader who takes power in Colombo to promise a resolution to the north-east land issue.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, who recently met with the leaders of the common platform formed by six Tamil and Muslim parties to raise a voice for solutions to common issues faced by Tamil-speaking communities, stated that he had requested a report from the military regarding the difficulties in releasing the lands and would take action to resolve the issue once the report was received.
Looking at Sri Lanka’s historical trajectory, rulers routinely adopt the pattern of ‘requesting reports’ to indefinitely delay the release of land. The National People’s Power (NPP) Government, which came to power promising a departure from traditional politics and guaranteeing a new political culture and systemic change, travelling down this same old path has caused immense disappointment among the affected people.
The military’s stance
The reasons cited by the military to continuously retain the ancestral lands of the people so many years after the war ended do not comply with any international or democratic norms. In a peaceful environment devoid of any armed struggle, locking up thousands of acres of fertile agricultural and residential lands under the guise of high security zones is entirely unjustified. This undermines not only inter-ethnic harmony but also economic development.
It is a cruel irony that the military runs hotels, operates agricultural farms, and engages in commercial enterprises for profit on lands seized under the pretext of security. While the rightful owners of the land endure unbearable hardships in tin sheds and camps, the question arises: in what way is it essential for national security for the military to enjoy running commercial complexes and entertainment centres on people’s native lands?
The incumbent NPP Government led by President Dissanayake came to power with the key promise of ‘change,’ opposing Sri Lanka’s traditional chauvinistic setup and corrupt politics. A progressive civil government should not hide behind military dominance, but rather bring the security sector under civil administrative control.
Prioritising only the reports of military officials indirectly hands over the authority of national policy-making to the military. The NPP Government must immediately distance itself from the approach of previous governments that aligned with this militaristic stance.
Historical fear and anxiety are surfacing among the Tamil people of the north-east today. If even this NPP Government – which came to power with immense popular support and progressive ideals in southern Sri Lanka – cannot resolve the Tamil people’s land issue, no future government may ever resolve it.
If a Government with a Leftist and progressive background bends to military pressure and neglects land release, future governments with extreme nationalist tendencies will not even consider land rights.
If the NPP Government is to prove its ‘promise of change,’ it must immediately stop merely requesting reports and repeatedly giving promises. Rejecting the military’s excuses and security-centric ideology to swiftly and unconditionally release the native lands under military control will form the foundation for lasting peace and genuine ethnic harmony in the country. Realising this historic responsibility and acting swiftly are the imperatives of our time.
Judicial controversy and public concern
Following the recent presentation in Parliament of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution Bill by Justice Minister Harshana Nanayakkara – which seeks to increase the retirement age of superior court judges – several petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging its constitutional compliance.
This issue concerning the Judiciary has become a major topic of debate in the country’s political and legal circles. The Government has also announced that further steps will be taken based on the Supreme Court’s decision.
However, amidst the protests and constitutional debates by the legal community and Opposition parties against this amendment bill, a crucial question arises: do the ordinary people of the country truly care about this issue?
Unfortunately, the bitter truth is that the majority of the public have very little concern or understanding regarding this constitutional amendment or the subtle legal complexities behind it. There are significant reasons for this.
In the aftermath of Sri Lanka’s unprecedented 2022 economic crisis, daily issues such as rising prices of essential goods, unemployment, tax burdens, and maintaining livelihoods fully occupy the mind of the average person.
For people who have been traipsing to courts for decades due to pending cases, whether the retirement age of judges is 65 or 67 does not seem to be a matter of concern. Nevertheless, their sole expectation is undoubtedly a speedy resolution to their cases.
Concepts such as judicial independence, Executive interference, and separation of powers remain confined to law books and Colombo-centric political debates; they do not translate into the daily experiences of ordinary citizens.
However, there is no doubt that this public indifference is dangerous. Whether the independence of the Judiciary is safeguarded or exploited for the interests of the Executive is directly linked to the democratic rights of every citizen. People must realise that when the law and judicial independence are compromised, it is the general public that ultimately suffers the consequences.
If the intention is to reduce court delays as the Government states, instead of merely raising the retirement age, structural reforms must be implemented – such as improving infrastructure facilities, adopting technology, and promptly filling vacancies.
At the same time, it is the need of the hour for legal experts, leaders, and the media to create clear awareness among the public regarding such constitutional matters that determine the country’s future democratic foundation. Only the informed participation of the public can protect true democracy.
Future of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in India
The Government’s announcement of new immigration relaxations to facilitate the voluntary repatriation of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees – who have been living in and outside camps in India for several decades – is a welcome and positive step.
Public Security Minister Ananda Wijepala recently informed Parliament that the Cabinet had decided to resolve the legal and administrative hurdles faced by refugees who fled during the war without proper passports or travel documents.
Specifically, it has been announced that Sri Lankan citizens who left the country without a passport prior to 1 August 2006 will be permitted to re-enter after background checks by appropriate security agencies.
This decision highlights several important dimensions regarding the refugees’ future and repatriation. Thousands of Tamils fled hastily by sea during the war, fearing for their lives, without passports, birth certificates, or citizenship documents. The lack of these credentials served as a major obstacle to their return.
It is hoped that the newly announced relaxations, along with processes made available through the Sri Lankan Deputy High Commission in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, will significantly reduce these administrative bottlenecks.
However, the Government’s duty does not end with resolving documentation issues. Mere ‘security clearance’ is insufficient for returning refugees. A proper rehabilitation plan ensuring the restoration of land rights, housing, employment opportunities, education, and normal living standards must be guaranteed. Returning without livelihood assurances will only push them back into economic distress.
There are two main groups among the refugees living in India: those who wish to return to their homeland, and those who, having lived in India for decades, prefer to obtain citizenship or permanent residency there.
While the Government steps up to take responsibility for its citizens, both countries must also recognise the desires and needs of the younger generation born and raised in Tamil Nadu. Both nations should reach a clear policy decision regarding them through bilateral talks.
As Minister Wijepala noted, Opposition parties and other organisations should assist those who wish to return by helping them prepare the necessary documents in advance. It is essential to approach this humanitarian issue beyond political differences.
The Government’s decision has unlocked a long-standing legal deadlock regarding the refugee crisis. However, simplifying legal procedures is only the first step. The true success of this initiative depends on ensuring that returning citizens can rebuild their lives on their native soil with dignity, security, and self-respect.
(The writer is a senior journalist based in Colombo)
(The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the official position of this publication)