The UK Riots - One Year On

What a difference a year makes.  Last year at this time, London (and the rest of the England) was in a state of shock as riots (and subsequent looting) held the authorities hostage for about a week or so.  Writing on this subject a year ago, I stressed that if anything what was needed was a collective response from both the government and wider society in dealing with the complex background context that had fermented the riots.  I talked about the need to engage with each other and to start the process of linking to not only understand each other but to strengthen communities, add to social cohesion and contribute to personal and professional development through friendships made and work undertaken across the partnerships. 

However since then, despite assurances of addressing some of the real issues, it seems that not much has really been done.  There have been some compensations paid (but it appears not in the same amounts that were promised), buildings have been rebuilt and people have been jailed.  There has been very little done to address some of the underlying factors that led to the riots.  Several news reports on the anniversary of the  riots spoke to local residents who claimed that the status quo had remained and what change had come about was as a result of the communities coming together despite Government assurances of helping.

It is the community that has taken the first step to collectively move forward from blame to positive action to address the root causes.   One such community forum took place on the 1^st of February 2012, which looked specifically at how grassroots organisations responded and should respond to such an incident, taking into account the moral and values-based dimension of the problem.  What was particularly unique about this forum was that it brought some of the principled players, who were involved directly with the riots: either as perpetrators, victims or people who prevented the riots taking place in their own back yard, and allowed them the space for sharing success stories and best practice and to have real engagement between the youth and people who are involved with making real changes within their communities. In the wake of the anniversary of the riots, the report of that forum has been published and makes for some interesting reading.

The views in particular aired by the youth should point us to their frustrations and concerns especially in relationships with the authorities, police stop and search, the quality of education, lack of job opportunities, and the lack of resources to develop facilities for the youth in their areas. The young participants who attended the forum were candid in identifying that some aspects of negative youth culture, misuse of social media, a breakdown of respect within society, and a lack of purpose were important issues to be addressed.  The voices of the youth speak out and tell us precisely where our time should be more productively used, in ensuring that it doesn’t happen again.

What this report tells us is something that was already common knowledge despite the best efforts especially by the Government to paint it otherwise, that the riots that took place in London and other cities in the summer of 2011 cannot be viewed or solved in isolation, without taking into account the wider picture. At the heart of the crisis is the frightening failure of integrity in society and in the words of the former Bishop of Worcester “we need to attune our moral compasses and move away from a ‘system of disregard’ that had emanated from the top of society and had made its way to the bottom”.

In order for us to tackle the roots causes of the riots there is a need for new insights and alternative solutions.  We have to develop values that can counter consumerism that will come not only from an education process but also by developing closer relationships between families and communities. In it is a role for faith communities in particular, to move out of institutional power politics and to provide a narrative and a space in which one can start to explore some of these discussions of ethics, values and morals.    Thus communities must recognise that the solutions to their challenges lie first with themselves and how they focus on the youth who are the drivers of the future with the provision of support, advice and guidance.  This involves tackling real issues of the lack of aspirations and motivation amongst young people and enabling youth to find meaning and purpose in their lives. Throughout Britain, there are seeds of hope.   As the report shows, these are sown by community groups and organizations who out of the bankruptcy of failed regeneration efforts, are stepping into fill the gaps.

In working to change the system of disregard decision makers and figures in authority like the police must increase real engagement with communities through regular consultations with community leaders, groups and schools thereby reducing resentment amongst grass roots communities.  The challenge for all of us, particularly decision makers, would be to facilitate and ensure that such initiatives are sustainable and spread throughout the country at all levels.

There thus needs to be space and confidence established and more importantly sustained for this type of engagement to take place which can lead to the creation of stronger communities that can share best practices but also come up with organic solutions to their problems.

This year London has been seen in an entirely different light.  The Olympics have showcased the city in all its summer glory, warmth and hospitality.  Add to it, the remarkable achievements of Team GB athletes and there is a really strong feel good factor and pride in the nation at the moment.  The anniversary of the riots has been largely overshadowed by the games and some would cynically say that, the games have been a distraction, masking the real issues underlying London and the UK in the midst of a deep recession and other social issues.  Those same news reports on the anniversary of the riots spoke to people from the communities at the heart of the riots last year, who claimed that the Olympics did not touch them nor did they feel ‘inspired’.  This is where the real challenge lies now in the legacy of the Games.  Whilst the motto of London 2012 has been ‘To Inspire a Generation’, it is not just inspiration that is needed.  It is real support; guidance and hand holding that can create a space for the next generation to flourish.

Since inner city communities bore the brunt of the impacts of the riots, they should be the first recipients of this legacy and hence we need to communicate with marginalized communities. To do this, it is vital to identify key ‘gatekeepers’ who have influence within marginalized communities such as teachers, former gang members and religious leaders, who are part of the solution and not the problem. What the Olympics have served to show is that results are borne from hard work, dedication and perseverance.  The achievements of the athletes goes very much against the grain of the markets dominated life, we have allowed ourselves to fall into, where more is better if it is done quickly and without much effort. This is the inspiration that needs to be drawn from the Olympians who now have a responsibility to engage with these at risk youngsters to inspire them to achieve beyond their dreams.

People can be inspired but without access to facilities and an opening up of opportunities, that inspiration fizzles out to disillusionment. Currently there is little scope in the school curriculum to provide young people with a bigger purpose in life and so it is important for ‘out of school’ experiences such as sports and working and serving in the community to be developed. The government will have its part to play in correcting the structural weaknesses in society that lead to social inequity and isolation, however there has to be a bigger role for wider society.  The great sense of pride (and unity) that has swept the nation and allowed them to embrace as the best of British, the multiculturalism of the opening ceremony and the plethora of medals by people who capture the diversity of the UK society, has to be channelled and utilised in order to inspire and offer opportunities for  the next generation.  London 2012 cannot afford to be written off as a party for a few weeks, but in essence, we will have to sustain that spirituality of commonality, which we discovered during the Olympics that will allow us to recognise the common space and substance that will provide the fuel for social change.

In short, we must learn to listen closely to one another, not simply because it is polite, but because it is just possible that we might learn something important about ourselves, become better human beings, and build a better global village in the process.

This was first published here  in Fair Observer

My thoughts of the Olympics Opening Ceremony

I am a sports fan and love watching the Olympics.  It symbolises all the best in the human sporting excellence and dedication and somehow also represents an opportunity for a pause button (rightly or wrongly) on world affairs as for about two weeks much of the focus is on the athletes.  I see the Olympics as a great opportunity to learn and understand from each other, as athletes engage with people from countries they probably would never engage with (I’m thinking USA and Iran), and a time for reflection as the Olympic Truce is observed for about 100 days.  Finally it is a time for learning as you actually discover countries that you have not even heard of, but realise that life goes on outside of the bubble that you are accustomed to.  Politics, corporate sponsorship, tickets aside, the Olympics is probably one of the more unifying shows around the world.

When the Olympics was awarded to London, I remember the excitement that greeted it, followed by the sudden realisation of reality as the next day, 7/7 took place.  In those 7 years, the Olympic debate and its engagement with communities took a back shelf as security took a higher priority.  For the Muslim community in particular, the scrutiny on radicalisation and constant obsession with identity and affiliation, has meant that they have been fighting fires and seeking justification, which is a shame as a majority of them primarily reside close to the main Olympic parks and thus should be recipients and equal partners in the infrastructural regeneration that has so far taken place and the social regeneration that is anticipated afterwards.

It is tough to articulate the mood of the country in the run up to the Olympics.  The austerity measures have really started to strangle people and last year’s riots shocked the nation into once again questioning the disconnect within society.  Add to this, the coalition government’s attempt, led by the Tories, to artificially construct some sort of British identity and affiliation by somehow negating multiculturalism, as was apparent by David Cameron’s speech last year in Munich, and has meant that for many migrant and Diaspora communities, it has been a period of a few uncertain years.

Now the actual conversation on multiculturalism is a complex one.  Do we talk about multiculturalism in allowing diversity as a lived experience or one that is a set of policies to manage such diversity?  More often than not we find a conflation of the two, where immigration is encouraged so that the experience of a society is transformed by diversity, making it more vibrant and cosmopolitan, but also there are a set of policies which manage diversity by putting people into boxes (defining individual needs and rights) and using those boxes to shape public policy. 

What this means is that conversation takes place in silos where inequalities in social policies are blamed on the immigrants or one section of the community is targeted as being the problem or that tackling sections of the community is only done through a security perspective ignoring underlying social contexts.

The discussion of identity and belonging also cannot take place in a contextual vacuum. If people feel continuously marginalised by social exclusion or perceived discrimination, they will feel reluctant to articulate an identity that says that they belong.

In the last two years, the debate has been magnified with the Royal wedding in 2011 and the Queen’s Jubilee Celebrations earlier on this year, where despite the best efforts to try and carve a ‘British’ identity from them, it was noticeable that amongst the thousands that celebrated publicly in their localities or in London, very few came from immigrant communities or were second / third generation expats. For a large majority of them in particular those coming from former colonial countries such as the West Indies and the Indian Subcontinent, a British identity that has strong resonance, affiliation and link with the Royal family is problematic as it brings into the discussion the painful issues of colonialism and the past suffering.  Many from previous British colonies are only in the UK because of the mess that their countries of heritage are in after post colonial independence.  However to divorce the Royal family from British identity is equally to strip it of one of its fundamental pillars.  So there remains an impasse.

Hence it was always going to be interesting at the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in London as to what route would be taken in terms of defining a British identity.  Much has been written about the ceremony both positive and negative.   Much to the dismay of a lot of people, it didn’t acknowledge the well known icons of the UK nor the empire and perhaps it was felt didn’t represent the old values of the UK. People complained that the historical sequences were not representative enough or that the modern day sequences had missed out bits. Equally though there were people who praised it and felt affirmed by what they had seen.  Some of these positive comments came from people who are normally cynical about anything to do with British identity.

From my perspective, what I enjoyed most about the ceremony was that it was about appreciating everyday people who make up the UK and things to do with their everyday lives, be it music, the health service, their kids.  The people represented were of all colours and all faiths, sizes, gender and age.  It celebrated the inventors, artists and scholars and acknowledged the activists.  

This is what I think is the most important aspect of the opening ceremony as it gave a most vivid blueprint for what it means to be British in the modern day.  Granted that much of what Britain stands for are built on empire and history which means there are those who feel apologies should be made for this or that this should be incorporated in articulating an identity.  However I feel that a 21^st century British identity is one that is made up individuals who have their own multiple identities. As Amartya Sen says in his book, ‘Identity and Violence’ the key to good citizenship and social cohesion which are components in a cosmopolitan society is the encouragement and retention of multiple identities. People have several enriching identities: nationality, gender, age and parental background, religious or professional affiliation. They identify with different ethnic groups and races, towns or villages they call home, sometimes football teams; they speak different languages, which they hope their children will retain, and love different parts of their countries.

Danny Boyle’s piece left me in no doubt of articulating what Amartya Sen was trying to say. It is the sum of these individual parts that a strong vibrant British identity can be borne that has a multi ethnic choir and some one of Asian Muslim heritage doing the 7/7 memorial dance.

Of course there is much to be done within social policies, education and community cohesion to translate that into practice.  The reality is that there are a lot of challenges facing people from their own contexts and heritage, just trying to break through social inequalities and make a better life for themselves and their families without worrying too much about what it means to be British.  What the Olympics Opening Ceremony did was to affirm and appreciate this in the overall pursuit of the grand vision for the identity. In the end, it has opened another window not only into the discussion of what it means to be British but has set a new paradigm for determining British identity, one that has more resonance with everyday people.

An edited version of this was published in the British Council's Our Shared Future Blog

3 years on, a hurting stalemate in Sri Lanka

Last month saw the official marking of three years after the end of the 28 year old war that plagued Sri Lanka, killing thousands and setting the country back in terms of development and prosperity.  Yet three years on, it seems that not much has changed.

Whilst Sri Lanka has tried to portray that there has been progress made on the ground largely in infrastructural development, critics have been quick to highlight the lack of tangible progress on reconciliation, in effect  the inertia on implementing internal recommendations for reconciliation, coupled with an ever weakening space for human rights, media expression and democratic freedom.   The recent resolutions at the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva on Sri Lanka have been testimony to this type of thinking where analysts have not only been critical that progress has been slow on the ground amidst a decline in general rights that are deemed to be core to a functioning democracy, but they have also pointed to the need to keep this on the international agenda.

This is a debatable fact and the Government is not really willing to engage on any real discussion on the issue despite the occurrences as reported in the media of kidnappings and killings. A recent interview between the defence secretary and the BBC is testimony to the extremely sensitive nature of such discussions and criticisms.

It is also not helped by the ongoing international distractions that have prevented it from addressing some of the real pressing issues. Since the end of the war, there has been pressure from parts of the international community, supported largely by many Tamil  Diaspora organizations (some of them aligned with the former LTTE rump) for ‘accountability’ on the conduct of the end of the war and the ‘alleged’ deliberate killing of  Tamil civilians by the Sri Lankan army.

This vociferous call for ‘justice’ from one section of the Tamil Diaspora community which is blatantly anti State and only interested in one thing, which at the surface is not  any  comprehensive reconciliation solution for Sri Lanka,  has been unfortunately conflated with criticisms of the country’s current status.  This lack of subtle differentiation is convenient and means that any discussions critical of the state and its governance is immediately treated with suspicion that it is being done in support of the LTTE.  It doesn’t help as well that those who are often the loudest critics of the country and the government, themselves share platforms publicly with supporters of the LTTE and the creation of a separate Tamil state.

This suspicion from the government’s perspective of any criticism of its actions is somewhat unhealthy as it views with distrust anyone who disagrees with them.  It has also become unhealthy because the real pressing issues of reconciliation, good governance and so on, are overshadowed by trying to react to these allegations and calls for ‘accountability’.

A recent discussion in London at the Frontline club, bears testimony to this ‘Push Me – Pull You’ scenario affecting Sri Lanka.  Pitting the director of the Infamous Channel 4 documentary, with someone from Amnesty International and a representative for Tamils against Genocide,  against  a Government MP and advisor, the stormy discussion ended up rehashing old ground with no actual consensus of how things can move forward and two sides clearly polarised and reacting to one another.    As a consequence, we have a hurting stalemate with no real progress.

There needs to be a change of narrative that seeks a 3rd alternative to the one that is currently being offered by both sides. The 3rd alternative has to be one that starts to look at how the country (with all its constituent communities) can move forward.

The days of looking for black cat in the dark room is over because we now know that there is no cat there’

In the past, the war was a powerful unifying force, giving radical parties a platform for populist agitation and established politicians a diversion from their failure to address economic weakness, social concerns and pervasive corruption.  This shield is no longer there and the government will have to realize that there are some fundamental structural weaknesses affecting the country (in terms of bad governance, corruption and so on) which criticism off, doesn’t make one anti state.  Whilst the task of ensuring a political solution to the grievances of the minorities in a way that ensures that the country moves forward after more than 20 years of conflict, the government

will also have to realize that true reconciliation is a bottom up approach that requires acknowledgement of and engagement with all communities and their concerns.  This in particular means that there is a need to contain the extreme Sinhala Buddhist elements that seem intent on hammering the Sinhala nationalist identity home whilst playing into the hands of the detractors by affirming their criticisms of the country.  Recent incidents in Dambulla with no official reaction from the government have done little to dispel the perception of an erosion of rights for minorities in Sri Lanka.

The Tamil community mainly in the Diaspora have to also learn that by continuously appearing to repeat the narrative of organizations associated with the LTTE or even flying LTTE flags at protests and events such as what happened during the recent visit of the president to the UK,   they will do nothing apart from harden the opposition to them and the perception that they represent ‘ an LTTE rump’.  By flying the LTTE flags, these protestors show that they not only support an organisation that killed many of their own leaders and people, but was also responsible for the recruitment of child soldiers and the ethnic cleansing in the north.  This not bode well for any future discussion of reconciliation, accountability and justice for Sri Lanka.

There will also have to be a realisation that the narrative of the end of the war is not as clear cut as it seems.  If recent media reports are to be believed, a large part of the Tamil Diaspora are themselves responsible for the deaths of civilians in the conclusion of the war, when they refused to put pressure on the LTTE to release the human shields that they were holding.

So the narrative on Sri Lanka and about Sri Lanka has to change.  The Tamils genuinely believed that they were fighting for an identity and to take pride in their ability controlling their own affairs.  Though the LTTE ultimately betrayed their own people on what Tamil autonomy would entail, these

feelings cannot be blotted out by simply eliminating the LTTE but, they can be made irrelevant by the treatment Tamils (and other minorities) receive in the new Sri Lanka.  More importantly it cannot just be done by institutional measures to use Tamil language or to suggest some political autonomy but it will have to be done parallel at the grass roots level where communities need to start trusting one another and accepting them for their differences.

The building of relations of trust is important. By building these relations it is about forswearing the need for revenge and hatred but understanding that there has to be a way of stopping the cycle of unfair pain turning in one’s memory.  In order for this to happen, we have to acknowledge each other’s narrative and hear the other’s stories.  This iintellectual empathy ensures that people who are in conflict with each other will have to acknowledge that everyone has justified grievances and will also allow the disagreement of someone’s view, analysis or policy without doubting their sincerity and loyalty.

This is what we call restorative justice that does not punish nor does it condone evil and absolve the perpetrator of responsibility.  What it does is that it acknowledges that the past is the past and though it has to be honoured must not be allowed to become a ball and chain for the future.

As Ian Paisley said, ‘We must not allow our justified loathing of the horrors and tragedies of the past to become a barrier to creating a better and more stable future.  in looking to that future, we must never forget those who have suffered during the dark  period from which we are emerging’

Restorative Justice is needed not only on the ground but also with  the Diaspora of all communities, who have a lot of interest in what goes on in Sri Lanka and can be used to support post conflict community reconciliation.

Circumstances have now changed  and there is a real opportunity for great advances to be made for the country, not only in laying to rest the ghosts of the past, but to work towards a new political system and era.  Everyone is advocating for a change, tired of the cost that the conflict has inflicted upon the nation, tired of the corruption of the political system, tired of how Sri Lanka has become as a nation and society.

The question is whether communities and stakeholders will develop that 3rd alternative to go beyond the hurting stalemate or whether we will be resigned to wishful dreams of what might have been.

this originally appeared on Groundviews

22 years and still waiting

For around 22 years, approximately 100,000 internally displaced people from the Northern Province in Sri Lanka have been languishing in camps in the north-west of the country. In the wake of post-conflict debates about reconciliation and rehabilitation, there now exists various challenges for this affected community.

World Refugee Day took place on June 20. For many it was about remembering the plight of many people worldwide, who today are without rights, a state and an identity. One may picture the plight of Palestinians or Kurds or perhaps the Rohingyas of Myanmar. However, it is often very easy to forget those whose plights do not make the headlines. Cambodia, South Sudan and so on offer us reminders that the plight of people who are without a state and rights are important and need to be at the top of the agenda, which is effectively what World Refugee Day chooses to highlight.

Sri Lanka is no stranger to the issues of refugees. After enduring almost 30 years of war, it has seen its fair share of internal displacements and humanitarian crises. Currently under international scrutiny for not only how the war ended in 2009 but its treatment of nearly 300,000 refugees mainly of Tamil origin, it is easy to forget that there are other communities within Sri Lanka (mainly from the majority Sinhala and minority Muslim community) that have also been victims of the conflict. In light of the current international scrutiny about internally displaced people (IDP) and refugees in Sri Lanka, very little has been said in particular about the Muslim refugees who for the past 22 years, have been consigned to staying in welfare camps in the north west of the country.

Muslims in Sri Lanka

For centuries, the Muslim community has been scattered across Sri Lanka. They have lived in co-existence with the other two main ethnic communities – Sinhalese and Tamil – having close socio-economic interactions with them. Despite the seeds for the minority rights crisis being planted at the time of Independence, the ethnic conflict that began to emerge at the end of the 1970s only engulfed the Muslim community a decade later.

In the north and east of the country, Muslims and Tamils coexisted, with Muslim and Tamil children attending the same school and taking different roles in cultural displays and sporting events. However, as the ethnic crisis developed into armed conflict with Tamil youth taking to arms and the Liberation of Tamil Tigers for Eelam (LTTE) being formed, it became apparent that in the early 1980s, there began to emerge a conflict of interest between Muslims and Tamils, especially in the east of the country. Muslim community leaders, tired of extortion and harassment by the LTTE, began to oppose their actions and articulate a "separate" Muslim identity and political consciousness that was different from the Tamils. The Tamil political leadership led by the LTTE considered the Muslims to be "traitors" due to many Muslims joining the government forces and setting up their own political parties. Eventually, by 1990, there was a total breakdown of communal relations in the east, while the LTTE increased its attacks on Muslim civilians with the worst being the massacre of worshipers in a mosque in the district of Batticaloa.

In the north, however, there was a different story. Muslims and Tamils had traditionally been fully integrated into local life as interdependent communities. There were Muslim traders, tailors, iron mongers, labourers and scholars. Several of them had even taken to farming in predominantly Tamil areas. The Muslims in Jaffna had lived next to each other, and therefore, had densely occupied a small part of the town. As part of the arena of culture and scholarship, Muslims formed an important component of the historical University of Jaffna.

The Liberation of Tamil Tigers for Eelam

All was to change on the October 23, 1990, when at about 8am, a voice sounding through the loudspeaker, mounted on a moving vehicle, declared that: "Muslims are given 24 hours to exit from the 'Tamil land' and they should leave all their possessions behind." Armed LTTE cadres had gone to every village and delivered letters to their district leaders, forcing the chief trustees of all mosques to read out the letters over loud speakers. The letters ordered all Muslims to vacate their respective villages within 48 hours and hand over all their belongings – such as vehicles, radios, sewing machines and water pumps – to LTTE cadres. They said the orders were from the LTTE high ranks and anyone trying to disobey would have to face the danger of losing their life.

Twenty-four hours passed and armed juveniles came round to push the Muslim residents out of their homes; men, women and children were herded through a narrow passage, and at the point of exit from the village they were body searched for valuables. Metallic cutters were used to remove jewellery that could not be easily removed, and each family was only allowed to take about 200 rupees ($5 at the time). In some cases, even a change of clothes was not allowed to be taken out. All possessions were deemed by the LTTE to belong to Tamil Eelam.

By October 26, it had become apparent that Muslims from Mullaitivu and Kilinochchi (other parts of the Northern Province deemed as land for the Tamils) had suffered the same fate. Approximately 75,000 men, women and children were expelled, though the final figures have been disputed. Without knowing where they were going, these desperate people moved south in whatever mode of transport they could find. Most of them trekked miles and miles (those from Mannar braved the sea) for days, and those who could not stand the strain perished on the way. The rest managed to reach Puttalam, the largest Muslim settlement outside the Northern province.

This incident has been largely forgotten in the annals of the Sri Lankan conflict. Successive governments have failed to provide adequate reprieve and support for the displaced who find themselves in a political wilderness without much of a voice, despite having representation in the government. Problems with education, proper shelter and sanitation plague the camps and therefore, the displaced people are dependent on menial jobs or handouts from philanthropists or the government and humanitarian organisations. Unemployment is a key problem for the majority of them who rely largely on seasonal demand for labour, such as work in the salterns and various other odd-jobs. They live in Cadjan huts, very often with two to three families crouched into one little hut.

Ethnic Cleansing

The order of expulsion shocked the country with the forceful eviction creating a new dimension in the ethnic crisis distancing the three communities in their coexistence and wellbeing. What the Muslims from the north had experienced was a deliberate act of ethnic cleansing carried out by the LTTE. However, what was more disturbing was the relative inertia of the Sri Lankan government and its armed forces to react and protect civilians from such an act of ethnic cleansing. The Sri Lankan community and the Diaspora as a whole were also silent on the issue and continue to forget about the plight of these refugees. Questions also have to be asked of the international community and humanitarian agencies who were silent when Muslims were being forced out of their homes on ethnic grounds, and who continue to be silent whilst condemning the Sri Lankan state for human rights violations against the Tamils. The same can also be said of the vociferous Tamil Diaspora who protested the end of the war and continue to demonstrate about the plight of Tamil refugees, yet remain quiet about this incident enacted in their name.

Puttalam still houses approximately 100,000 displaced persons across 141 welfare centres, from the five districts of the nothern province. What were then considered to be temporary settlements have now become permanent abodes for these unfortunate victims of the LTTE's horrific programme of ethnic cleansing. Over recent years, Puttalam has also played host to some Tamil and Sinhala IDPs who have been driven away from their homes in Batticaloa and Trincomalee. The town is beginning to buckle under the pressure of hosting a large IDP population.

As some studies have pointed out, hosting a large IDP population has placed a great deal of pressure on local services as they were not proportionally developed to meet the needs of the populace. Moreover, it has had a negative impact on the relations between IDPs and the host community who originally welcomed the displaced people.

Recent incidents in Puttalam have exposed these cracks, especially as some of the IDP communities have received political representation. There is now a new fear that tensions between the area's original Muslim inhabitants, who have grown tired of the newcomers taking their jobs and increasingly buying their land, could lead to further crises.

After the ceasefire agreement was signed in February 2002, following what amounted to a public apology by the political leader of the LTTE and an agreement signed between the LTTE and the main Muslim political party, a number of these displaced families did return to their homes in the north only to find their houses occupied by displaced Tamils, rebels or simply destroyed. These people though once again returned to Puttalum when the security deteriorated.

Resettlement and Rehabilitation

Twenty-two years after the evictions, the displaced Muslim community still speak affectionately of their old Tamil neighbours, and given the chance, would return back to their home towns. There are some though, who are adamant that they will not go back because they have stopped trusting the Tamils. It is these who need greater support for healing to begin.

In any return for the displaced, there are of course a couple of issues that would need to be considered as essential for a return.

The people would need to be reassured that there is safety and security, as well as a recovery of the lost properties. However, since the LTTE settled Tamils in these properties, any return could be problematic. Many people returning would face shortages in basic needs such as water supply, adequate sanitation, basic health services, educational facilities, dried ration, compensation and opportunities to recreate employment for unemployed people. A welcome project supported by some moderate Tamil diaspora members in London has involved refurnishing the main school in Jaffna in an attempt to encourage resettlement.

As a result of the expulsion in 1990, all documentary evidences in the government records have been destroyed such as ownerships of the properties. In any resettlement, positive and immediate arrangements need to be conducted to hand over the possessions of properties whilst returning land and compensating for this. Any planned resettlement of outsiders, in lands owned by these northern Muslims, would need to be stopped forthwith. The government should also consider that state lands adjacent to the area owned by evicted Muslims, should be given to them in keeping with the increasing demand due to an increase in population.

All relief, compensation, rehabilitation, reconstruction and resettlement activities should be done by a task force which includes district representatives of northern Muslims as well as representatives from the Tamil communities. Many of the schools have been damaged and destroyed due to the war. Special concessions would need to be given to northern Muslims in education, government employment and livelihood programs, but also extended to other communities that have faced similar challenges.

Resettlement and rehabilitation of these Puttalam refugees are still major issues that need to be resolved. It is no doubt that the internally displaced people would like to resettle in their original places, and therefore, mechanisms for their right to return should be a major question answered by the government. The government, has so far, failed to address these aspirations sufficiently. Likewise the communities (and the Diaspora that represent these communities) should also be working together to identify solutions at all levels of the spectrum.

There is, however, now a new generation among the refugees who have no affiliation with the parental roots to their villages in the Northern Province. They would prefer to continue living where they are now which indeed, makes it challenging for the future.

This originally appeared on Fair Observer