A 10 member delegation of members of the Indian Parliament from Tamil Nadu recently visited Sri Lanka to assess the conditions of civilians displaced by the recently concluded war.  This was the first visit of its kind in terms of its political profile. Thus far, only bureaucrats have been involved in the exercise. The MPs belonged to the ruling UPA coalition: Dravida Munetra Kazhagam (DMK), Congress and Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK). The trip was in response to a long-pending invitation from the Sri Lankan President, Mahinda Rajapakse to the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Karunanidhi and the opposition leader Jayalalitha. It was also undertaken to meet demands from various quarters from Tamil Nadu to dispatch a parliamentary delegation to the island to study the requirements of the internally displaced persons (IDPs).

In addition to meeting President Rajapaksa during their five-day visit, the parliamentarians met Prime Minister Ratnasiri Wickremenayaka, Senior Adviser to the President Basil Rajapaksa and Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. They had extensive interactions on two broad issues: resettlement of the war-displaced and finding a lasting solution to the ethnic question. They visited IDP camps in Vavuniya and Jaffna and made a special trip to the Central Province to meet plantation Tamils, who were of recent Indian origin.

The visit no doubt helped the Indian delegation make an on-the-spot assessment of camp conditions and the future requirements of the displaced. Based on their study, the Indian parliamentarians suggested in their report that India could help the resettlement process by building about 100,000 houses, constructing roads and schools, making arrangements for water supply and helping with agriculture and other basic amenities for the IDPs who were returning home. Based on these inputs, India promised additional aid of Rs 5 billion (India already pledged Rs 5 billion in June this year). The MPs, however, advised that this additional aid could be given in the form of infrastructure and materials instead of hard cash. They wanted New Delhi to send more demining experts to quicken the process of sanitizing the war-ravaged terrain.

The visit was not just politically and diplomatically symbolic, but to an extent successfully exerted pressure on the Sri Lankan government to act seriously on moving the displaced out of camps in phases before the commencement of the monsoon and to offer Sri Lankan Tamils a “fair political deal” in the long run. The delegation also received assurance that all orphaned children and those disabled by the war would be handed over to concerned NGOs for further care. Using this opportunity, the MPs raised the issue of Indian fishermen and were promised that the latter would not be fired upon indiscriminately by the island’s navy. Through this, the first-ever Indian political delegation assuaged apprehensions in Tamil Nadu on the conditions of the displaced Tamils. The assurance is that all issues are being constantly monitored and swiftly acted upon. It should be acknowledged in India that the Indian delegation was given access to places where even the Sri Lankan opposition MPs are not allowed to venture. The visit only reiterated that there is immense scope for India to contribute to the island’s development, especially the war-affected Tamil community, in every sphere. Increasing the scope of education and employment opportunities for the displaced students and youth in India would be a useful role that India could play. The Indian government and the private sector can consider investing liberally, especially in the island’s northeast.

The visit was not devoid of controversies, however. The delegation was criticised for not being representative of all concerned parties. It was further pointed out that the visit was a “conducted tour” and in no way benefited Tamils in the island nation. The media and opposition should not have been kept in the dark. The visit would have been more fruitful had it included at least a few opposition MPs. In addition, having the media on board would have been a ‘force multiplier’ in enhancing pressure on the Sri Lankan government on resettlement. To rectify this anomaly, the Sri Lankan President can consider inviting a delegation of opposition MPs to verify for themselves whether the ruling delegation was right or wrong in their assessment. On their part, the parliamentarians should not consider it as a one-off visit and forget about it. Instead, they should keep track of the situation in Sri Lanka and provide the help required for the welfare of the displaced.