I have noted previously that the failure of Government to make its position clear on a number of issues has been one of the main difficulties about Reconciliation. I say this because, by and large, the Government position on most issues has been extremely positive, and inadequacies are more due to inefficiency than policy. But because the system does not encourage transparency, very good practices do not get the appreciation they deserve.

With regard to Resettlement, the Government achievement in sending back so many within a couple of years to their original homes has not been paralleled in other countries which have suffered similar conflicts. Our determination to discourage the displaced from establishing themselves elsewhere, and instead concentrating on returns, with efforts to build up essential infrastructure, has borne fruit in the enhanced economic activity we see in both North and East. Certainly the North has not taken off as rapidly as the East, but the fact that so many in the Wanni are able to live off the land, and build up their own houses and businesses, is a tribute to the plans that were implemented so expeditiously, with roads and irrigation and electricity in a much better condition than could have been imagined two years back.

I believe the initial start up support given by Government with Indian and UNHCR assistance was enough for most people, and basic shelters have in many cases now been transformed into solid homes. However it was also desirable to provide housing for the vulnerable, and this has been done on a major scale by the army and some NGOs, with a massive Indian programme also in implementation to help several more of the displaced. However, we failed to make it clear that this full scale support was intended only for the most vulnerable, and that others, with earning capacity restored, were expected to build up their own homes. For this purpose, we should also have done more concerted training for the construction industry that we knew would be so important, and indeed I found the brightest amongst the former LTTE combatants who attended the entrepreneurship workshops conducted on my decentralized budget keep to set up construction companies, with special attention to piping and other lucrative specialist work.

Unfortunately we did not set in motion early enough the credit schemes that would have laid the foundations for such entrepreneurship. And instead, in part because of the pleasure politicians take in giving handouts, we laid greater stress on assistance rather than encouraging self reliance. Thus we still find people waiting for houses and pointing out resentfully that others have benefited, and we fail to make clear the policies that should have made such assistance redundant.

We have also not been clear about the rationale for not giving basic assistance to those who had been displaced earlier. While we should make it clear to those displaced in 2009 that they have got more help to assist with swift resettlement than those who had suffered earlier – and for much longer periods, such as the Muslims expelled by the LTTE in 1990 – we must also make it clear to these earlier victims of terrorism that, since they have had some relief in the areas in which they had sought refuge, and have developed livelihoods there, they cannot have the same level of assistance. At the same time we should recognize an obligation to provide basic assistance to those who are still languishing in camps, who had not benefited from the housing schemes that were constructed during the last five years with World Bank Assistance.

Better information mechanisms would also help with regard to land issues. These can be divided into

b. Settling conflicting claims between owners and those who had occupied / worked on land after the original owners were displaced

Government should therefore, as indeed was envisaged through the Bim Saviya programme, move swiftly to correct this historical anomaly, and bestow ownership on all those who can lay claim to have worked on particular lands. Where there are conflicting claims, they should give primacy in chronological order, but ensure adequate compensation for others who have worked on specific lands, by providing alternatives. A similar principle should apply with regard to lands which owners abandoned, which were then occupied by others. The Minister of Justice has now pledged that the legislation prepared by the Law Commission to deal with such conflicting claims will be introduced soon, and this should be given priority.

I believe that, if the forces require land for security reasons, they are entitled to take it over with adequate compensation. This should not be a matter of others telling them what they should acquire or not acquire, but equally the forces should limit their acquisitions to what is essential, and should explain why this is needed. They should also decide swiftly on what is essential, because three years after the conflict ended is time enough for making decisions and for informing stakeholders accordingly. Where land or buildings are needed for a further period, but not permanently, as in the case of the many police stations where building on new sites is proceeding slowly, owners should be assured of dates for vacation.