A Qualitative Community Readiness Assessment for Repatriation Among Sri Lankan Tamil Refugees in Indian Camp

Background: The civil war in Sri Lanka created over 250,000 refugees, of which 123,000 live in Indian refugee camps. Their migration experiences became very complex and traumatic when they were asked to repatriate back to Sri Lanka after the final Sri Lankan civil war in 2009. Voluntary repatriation has long been seen as the foremost durable solution to forced displacement and as the solution that would benefit the greatest number of refugees. This perspective assumes that once the original cost of flight is redressed, refugees will not only identify with their homeland but will also want to return. The question unanswered in this situation is the readiness of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in India to repatriate to their country of origin. Without conducting an inquiry about refugees’ readiness to repatriate and identify their major concerns related to repatriation, it is impossible to design effective repatriation strategies.  Therefore, the main objective of this qualitative study was to examine Sri Lankan Tamil refugee community readiness for repatriation to Sri Lanka.

Methods: In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in the Gummidipoondi refugee camp in Chennai, India. We used theoretical sampling to deliberately select individuals based on their ability to provide the researchers with needed information. Interviews were conducted in Tamil and were audiotaped; transcripts and field notes were analyzed by the research team. We used inductive approach for our qualitative analysis and conducted open and axial coding. First, we reviewed the verbatim transcripts for both a priori and emergent themes based on participants’ responses. In the second stage of coding, major themes and subthemes were developed. We then refined and eliminated codes by establishing similarities and differences of the transcribed text, and the codes were grouped into a final set of themes and subthemes.

 Results:Participants were 60% male and 40% female with an average age of 30 years. All of the participants were living with families. Most (80%) of the participants did not support repatriation. Participants reported several difficulties related to repatriation such as lack of social and physical structures in Sri Lanka, lack of employment and educational opportunities in their country of origin, losing their previously owned land and houses to the Sri Lankan government, lack of resources necessary to support their livelihood, including farming machines, and severe intergenerational conflict. Participants were angry about the lack of sufficient repatriation efforts taken by different entities and described reasons for wanting to stay in India including raising a new generation born in exile and not identifying with the Sri Lankan government

 Conclusion & Implications: This data suggest that prior to developing voluntary refugee repatriation programs, governments must address the concerns affecting refugees’ return to Sri Lanka to lead a fruitful life.  In terms of implications for policy, the data suggest that repatriation proposals should be refugee-community centered.  In terms of implications for practice, the data indicate that refugees should be allowed to choose when and how to return home. Future research should explore refugees’ role in community building.