 |
| |
 |
TSUNAMI AND WAR REFUGEES
By D. B. S. JEYARAJ
Non - Governmental organizations involved in refugee relief work in Sri Lanka allege that
the Government is guilty of blatantly discriminating between two sets of refugees in the
Country.
According to these circles the "older" class of refugees displaced by the war are being
given step - motherly treatment while the recent category of refugees comprising Tsunami
victims are given preferential treatment.
A glaring example is in the allocation of dry rations to both sets of refugees point out NGO
circles. The proposed value of dry rations for the new tsunami refugee amounts to 350
rupees per person for just a week. These are to be given people living in refugee camps or
welfare centers as well as those living outside these.
In the case of war refugees dry rations are given only to those staying in refugee camps.
The value is abysmally low when compared to the tsunami victims.
War victims get a Monthly value of only 1260 rupees per family of five while an individual
tsunami victim is likely to get 1400 rupees per month. There is no restriction in size of family.
But war victims get only 1260 rs maximum for families of five or more. Though refugee
agencies have asked the government to increase allowances on the basis of additional
family members the government has refused. The state has been extremely generous to
tsunami victims.
Moreover war victim families get lesser amounts of dry rations if the families are small. A
four member family gets 1008 rs;three member family -840rs; two member family - 675rs;
and a single member unit 336 rupees only.
Many of the war refugees have been in camps or been displaced for more than 20 years.
Of the internally displaced 353, 624 people due to war around 275, 226 live with relatives
and friends while 78, 389 live in 295 refugee camps or relief centers.
According to UNHCR statistics about 80 % of war refugees are Tamil , 15% Muslim and 5%
Sinhala. There is no official breakdown of tsunami victims according to ethnicity but all three
communities are said to be displaced in near equal numbers.
While elaborate plans are being formulated to re - house tsunami victims in new townships
the same interest has not been shown towards the pathetic war victims.
War victims moving out of camps have been given a 25,000 rupee re - settlement allowance
per family out of UNHCR funds. More than three thousand houses were built under a ADB
project while a world bank funded scheme to build 45,000 houses for refugees over a four
year period is in the pipeline.
Some of the war refugees have been displaced for more than five times. Many tsunami
refugees in the N - E are war refugees too.
While most refugee agencies are raising the demand that the government should not
discriminate between refugees caused by the man made disaster of war and the refugees
caused by natural calamity of tsunami the Govt has not shown any interest so far.
Given the media hype over tsunami and the great international focus the government is
suspected of giving pride of place to tsunami victims as potential cash cows to derive
international assistance. Relief agency circles also point out that the government may also
focus more on the South and West because of ethno - political considerations.
A glaring discrepancy is the 100 metre coastal limit to build structures in the South and
West as opposed to a 200 metre limit in the North - East. This is said to be a great injustice
as most Tamil and Muslim people in the N- E lived in close proximity to the sea.
Recently people were allowed to relocate to their old areas in the Western coast while the
STF was used to drive off Muslim squatters along Kalmunai beach.
Tourism minister Anura Bandaranaike has indicated that the 100 metre limit will not be
enforced strictly for tourist projects.
NGP circles however point out that displaced people in the N - E have not been consulted
when formulating limits and resettlement plans.
NGO circles have warmly welcomed the recent UNHCR demand that war victims be
resettled along with tsunami victims.
Continuing to adopt double standards in the case of both categories does not reflect well
upon the Government claiming to be fair by all sections of the population it is pointed out.
[The Sunday Leader]