#mathini mohanachandran

How do the newly emerging diasporas, particularly those due to traumatic, violent events, force us to reconsider our conventional ideas of diasporas? We conventionally consider diasporas as William Safran defines them, consisting of people who:

1) have been dispersed from a common center to two or more foreign areas

2) have a collective memory or myth of their homeland

3) are unable to fully integrate into their host nation’s society

4) believe that their homeland is their true home.

  The Rwandan diaspora, Iraqi diaspora, Venezuelan diaspora, Chilean diaspora, Intra-African diaspora and the Intra South Asian diaspora (specifically the stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh and the Sri Lankan Tamils in India) have all been separated from their homeland due to war, natural disasters and extremely oppressive regimes. The collective memory of the trauma of these events and being forced to leave their homelands results in these diasporas having an extremely strong diaspora consciousness and desire to return home once the situation is safe again. They stay up-to-date with what is occurring in their homeland and try to send aid back if they can and support it however they are able to.

  The forced dispersal has also made these diasporas to consist of many people with refugee status, fleeing with only what they could take with them rather than going to the host nation comfortably and with high status. Many go to neighboring countries and end up in refugee camps, where they can stay for years. This is another boundary between the diaspora and the host nation, though more physical than other ones, such as language and culture, preventing integration but also keeping the diaspora close together rather than dissolving into the host nation. The political situation and relationship between the host nation and homeland also affect the diaspora’s ability to integrate and with many emerging diasporas, it does not aid them in doing this. New alignments help the diaspora connect with other groups in the host nation, such as those suffering similar effects of war or those who share languages or culture but the diaspora still maintains a strong consciousness.

  Though individually unique, the emerging diasporas seem to be extremely well-defined by Safran’s definition of diaspora due to how recently they have been dispersed and the forced nature of the dispersal, resulting in a very strong diaspora consciousness.

  But many of them, excluding the Chilean diaspora due to the earthquake, also reveal how the impact of colonization and Western interference in nations is giving rise to these diasporas. They bring up the issues of dictatorships and the conflicting idea of national and ethnic identity from the new nations born after colonization, which R. Radhakrishnan notes is also an issue in the host nations determining how to define their diasporas. He states how the conflict between the national and ethnic identity brings the question of “How do these two selves coexist and how are they unified into one identity?” (105). In dispersals due to war such as the Rwandan diaspora and the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora, the clear answer is that they do not coexist and that it is the ethnic identity that dominates, resulting in the wars. The diasporas make it very clear that the past actions of developed nations are having very damaging consequences.

  Radhakrishnan, R. “Ethnicity in an Age of Diaspora”. Transition 54. 1991: 104-115.

Stranded Pakistanis is a name for the group of Urdu speakers in Bangladesh. They came to Bangladesh from the Indian state of Bihar in 1947 during Partition, right after the region received independence from England. Muslims in India moved to either Pakistan or Bangladesh, then known as West Pakistan and East Pakistan, respectively, while Hindus and Sikhs in those regions migrated to India. From 1947 to 1971, Pakistan was composed of both Pakistan and Bangladesh, governed by the same government, though they were physically separated by India.  In 1971, Bangladesh fought a war with Pakistan for their independence. The Urdu speakers, also called Biharis, sided with Pakistan, considering it to be their homeland. Upon losing the war, they refused Bangladeshi citizenship and ended up in UN camps, having their property confiscated. Pakistan repatriated some of them, as long as they generally resided in West Pakistan, were federal government employees or were members of families divided between East and West Pakistan. Repatriation continued until 1993, when tensions in Pakistan over the repatriation caused the government to stop. During all of this time, the Biharis were in the camps, citizens of neither Bangladesh nor Pakistan, essentially a stateless people though they consider Pakistan to be their homeland. This resulted in their calling themselves “stranded Pakistanis”. In 2008 though, Bangladesh gave citizenship to those who had been minors in 1971 or had not been born yet, depending on if they claimed to have no allegiance to Pakistan. Many still live in some of the 70 camps that still are in Bangladesh.

 Alam, Julhas. "Bangladesh's refugees dream of Pakistan". USA Today. 14 Aug. 2007. 3 Jun. 2012. <http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2007-08-14-3079523328_x.htm>.

Ghazali, Abdas Sattar. “Plight of the Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh”.  Countercurrents.org. 19 Dec. 2009. 2 Jun. 2012. <http://www.countercurrents.org/ghazali191209.htm>.

Siddiqui , Zaheer Mahmood. “Empathy for ‘stranded Pakistanis’ in Bangladesh”. Dawn.Com Newspaper 6 Oct. 2011. <http://dawn.com/2011/10/06/empathy-for-stranded-pakistanis-in-bangladesh/>.

“Stateless in Bangladesh and Pakistan Chronology of Events”. Stateless in Bangladesh and Pakistan. 28 May. 2012. <http://www.statelesspeopleinbangladesh.net/chronology.php>.

The stranded Pakistanis have generally been living in camps since the end of the war. These camps are overcrowded with unsanitary conditions. There is a lack of access to food, medical facilities and education in these areas as well. Without citizenship they are also unable to hold government jobs. However, even after some of the population was able to receive Bangladeshi citizenship, they still have difficulties gaining government jobs, having a passport, accessing credit or even getting compensation for the property that was confiscated from them after the war.

  The offer of Bangladeshi citizenship also highlights a distinct difference between the older and younger generations of the stranded Pakistanis. Older generations growing up before the war still consider themselves Pakistani and speak Urdu. They had lived in a period when where they lived was a part of Pakistan and sharing the same language with Pakistan rather than Bangladesh would cause them to identify more with Pakistan. However, the younger generations, having grown up under the Bangladesh rather than East Pakistan government, can speak Bengali and want to stay in Bangladesh and become citizens. It is where they grew up and having Bangladeshi citizenship would be more advantageous, though it does seem that the Bengali speakers have not forgotten that the stranded Pakistanis had fought on the side of Pakistan rather than Bangladesh. They are still a distinct group from the Bengali speakers, not only due to their language but also for their role in Bangladesh’s history.

  “Bangladesh Refugees International”. Refugees International. 1 Jun. 2012. <http://www.refugees

international.org/where-we-work/asia/bangladesh>.

Ghazali, Abdas Sattar. “Plight of the Stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh”.  Countercurrents.org. 19 Dec. 2009. 2 Jun. 2012. <http://www.countercurrents.org/ghazali191209.htm>.

The stranded Pakistanis have had a difficult relationship with their homeland, Pakistan. Prior to the war, when Bangladesh was East Pakistan, they had an advantage over Bengalis, particularly in the job market, as their native language was the national language. This shared language with West Pakistan led to them identifying more with West Pakistan than with Bengali-speakers in East Pakistan. So when the war started, they aided West Pakistan’s army rather than the rebels.

  However, after the war, their intention to remain Pakistani citizens rather than become Bangladeshi citizens caused a problem for Pakistan. South Asia in general is an extremely heterogeneous region with multiple ethnic groups speaking different languages and practicing different religions. So when the region received its independence from England, it ended up being split into countries that consisted of multiple ethnic groups in the same area. Partition did not help matters by causing Indian Muslims to have to leave to Pakistan and Bangladesh. So Pakistan was already having problems keeping its own different ethnic groups appeased. The primary problem was with where the stranded Pakistanis would go after repatriation, since their intention was to go to Pakistan after receiving citizenship. Most likely they would go to Karachi, which is in the Pakistani province of Sindh. But that province was already having issues between the native Sindhis and the Muhajirs, Urdu-speaking Muslims who had come to Sindh due to Partition. As can be seen in the map below, Sindh is right next India and so would have had many Muhajirs cross over to Sindh when the subcontinent was being separated by religious lines.

The Sindhis were afraid that the arrival of the stranded Pakistanis would increase the number of Urdu-speakers in their province, turning them into a minority in their own province. This issue resulted in Pakistan slowly repatriating groups of stranded Pakistanis until 1993, when the tension caused too much opposition for them to continue repatriation efforts.

  An interesting aspect of this issue to consider is how this causes the stranded Pakistanis to differ from conventional definitions of diaspora. According to William Safran, a diaspora consists of people who have been dispersed for a collective center to two or more peripheral regions, retain a collective memory of the original homeland, believe they cannot be fully integrated into their host society and regard the homeland as their true home that they or their descendents will return to. The stranded Pakistanis easily fulfill the last two conditions with their different language and role in the war as well as still considering themselves Pakistani. However, the issue of where would they go in Pakistan points out that they have never been to their homeland. There is no place in Pakistan now that they would have historical claim to. They were Pakistani because of the situation where Pakistan consisted of two physically separate regions. Pakistan’s loss of Bangladesh was what could be considered as the dispersal event, though the stranded Pakistanis only moved to other regions in the country that has been their home since they left India. They never technically left the land that was their homeland and so their collective memory is of the time when Bangladesh was East Pakistan. This causes the divergence from the first two requirements. They remember some version of Pakistan, even if it was in its expanded state, and in a way they were dispersed or separated from Pakistan with the secession of Bangladesh, even if it is not a foreign region. Thus, the stranded Pakistanis are an excellent example of how emerging diasporas are changing the conventional ideas about diasporas through how the effects of colonization and decolonization have shaped them.

"Map of Pakistan". National Trade and Transport Facilitation Committee. 3 Jun. 2012. <http://www.nttfc.org/pakistanMap.asp>.

Safran, William. “Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return”. Diaspora: A journal of Transnational Studies 1.1 1991: 83-99.

Sri Lanka, an island off the Southern coast of India, has a Sinhalese majority and Tamil minority population. There has generally been much tension between these two groups, particularly after they had received their independence from England. The Sinhalese have had control of the government post-independence and have instituted affirmative action policies for the betterment of the Sinhalese and consequently, the detriment of the Tamils. This resulted in a series of wars from the 80’s to 2009 between the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a Tamil rebel group fighting for an independent Tamil state, Tamil Eelam. During this period, many Tamils left due to the violent conflict, India being one of their destinations. They arrived by many methods, such as via boat from Sri Lanka’s northern coast to Rameshwaram, in the Indian state Tamil Nadu as seen in the picture below. 

Many are currently living in camps in Tamil Nadu, though some do live outside of the camps, though they do not receive support by the Indian government like those in the camps do.

  Chamberlain, Gethin. “Tamil Refugees flee to India to escape fighting in Sri Lanka”. The Guardian 23 Apr. 2009. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/23/sri-lanka-civilians-flee-india>.

Iyengar, Pushpa. "New Words to Keep". Outlook India. 12 Oct. 2009. 3 Jun. 2012. <http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?262064>.

The reception of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in India was relatively welcoming, particularly since they were arriving in Tamil Nadu, which is the Tamil language state in India. Indian Tamils and Sri Lankan Tamils do have a similar language and culture, though it must be stated that they are still considered distinct groups. The Indian government also had been on the side of Tamils in the beginning of the civil war, allowing the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) to train in India. This reception though, changed after the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Ghandi in 1992, believed to be done by members of the LTTE. After this, the refugee camps experienced increased security, local Indians not being allowed to enter the camps or interact with the refugees. Below is an image of a camp in Tamil Nadu.

Two other camps were also formed for suspected LTTE members. Rather than welcomed, the change in label of the LTTE from rebel group to terrorists resulted in all Sri Lankan Tamils being treated with suspicion upon arrival to India. The increased security of the camps reflects this and also mirrors similar issues in many refugee camps in Africa, which are considered to be recruitment grounds for other terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda.

  The increased security further worsened the state of the refugee camps. While they do get free housing and other provisions, the camps lack room, sanitation, food, education for the children and medical facilities. Refugees also have issues with work, mostly doing physical labor but lacking job security. Tightened security also blocked the ability to NGOs to enter the camps. This was countered by the formation of the Organization for Eelam Refugees Rehabilitation, which works within the camps to aid the Sri Lankan Tamils.

  Despite life in India, even though the war has ended, there has been very slow movement of Sri Lankan Tamils back to Sri Lanka. Many cite unknown conditions in Sri Lanka, confiscated property, still ongoing discrimination of Tamils and a new life in India, where the next generation has never been to Sri Lanka as reasons for not leaving. Life in India is comparatively better to having to go home where there might be nothing left. There are still many who do want to go back as it is their homeland. Though life in India is comparatively better than life in Sri Lanka, especially with the war, it still remains home for those who choose to return or not.

  Chaterjee, Patralekha. “Tales from Tamil refugee camps”. The Magazine of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Mar. 1997. 28 May. 2012. <http://www.redcross.int

/EN/mag/magazine1997_3/20-21.html>.

“Conditions in Sri Lankan Tamils Refugee Camps”. People’s Unions for Civil Liberties. 18 Jun. 2006. 31 May. 2012. <http://www.pucl.org/Topics/International/2006/refugees-srilanka-report.html>.

Nadar, A Ganesh. “For many Lankan refugees, Tamil Nadu is the only home they know”. Rediff News. 31 Oct. 2011. 31 May 2012. <http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-for-many-sri-lankan-refugees-tamil-nadu-is-the-home-they-know/20111031.htm>.

“Sri Lanka: Tamil refugees slowly return from India”. IRIN humanitarian news and analysis. 11 Jan. 2012. 28 May. 2012. <http://www.irinnews.org/Report/94622/SRI-LANKA-Tamil-refugees-slowly-return-from-India>.

"Lankan-Tamils Refugee Camps in Tamil Nadu". Tea Shop Talks-Chennai. 21 May. 2011. 3 Jun. 2012. <http://teashoptalks.blogspot.com/2011/05/lankan-tamils-refugee-camps-in-tamil.html>

Valatheeswaran, C and Irudaya S Rajan. “Sri Lankan Tamil Refugees in India: Rehabilitation Mechanisms, Livelihood Strategies, and Lasting Solutions”. Refugee Survey Quarterly 30.2 2011: 24-44.