IF MUSLIM NATIONS ARE NOT ACCEPTING ROHINGYA REFUGEES, WHY SHOULD SRI LANKA?
A Rohingya refugee living in Sri Lanka addressed the UN Human Rights Council by video through Pax Romana and called, among other things, for Sri Lanka to consider granting citizenship or permanent residency to Rohingyas and other refugees who cannot find permanent settlement elsewhere. When did Sri Lanka become responsible for permanently absorbing the Rohingya problem? Sri Lanka cannot be expected to become a permanent settlement destination simply because others have failed to resolve the Rohingya crisis.
WHAT WAS ACTUALLY ASKED OF SRI LANKA?
There is a world of difference between asking people to be treated humanely while temporarily in Sri Lanka and asking Sri Lanka to provide permanent residency or citizenship.
The first is a humanitarian question.
The second is an immigration, demographic, economic, security and sovereignty question.
Who decided that Sri Lanka should be the place where a person who cannot find permanent settlement elsewhere should settle permanently in Sri Lanka?
LOOK AT BANGLADESH BEFORE ASKING SRI LANKA TO DO MORE
Bangladesh is already living with the consequences of an enormous Rohingya influx.
A temporary solution has resulted in over one million Rohingya refugees living in Bangladesh.
If the international community spends hundreds of millions of dollars responding to the Rohingya crisis, why is the answer to create a new burden on a small country like Sri Lanka rather than directing them to countries which share common religion & culture?
And if Muslim solidarity is being invoked to pressure Sri Lanka, why are wealthy Muslim-majority countries not coming forward to embrace their own?
When Bangladesh is struggling to manage Rohingyas, why should Sri Lanka silently watch organised efforts by politicians, religious organisations or other groups to facilitate further arrivals or to pressure the Government into accepting permanent settlement?
The public deserves to know who is involved, what has been requested and under what authority.
Sri Lanka is not Bangladesh.
Sri Lanka does not have Bangladesh’s population, territory or resources.
Sri Lanka is a small island already struggling with its own economic, social and security pressures.
EVEN MALAYSIA IS NOW ASKING HARD QUESTIONS
Malaysia is another Muslim-majority country that has hosted a substantial Rohingya population.
Yet Malaysia too is now confronting the consequences.
It currently hosts approximately 193,800 registered refugees from Myanmar, including Rohingya, and has announced a voluntary repatriation programme involving Myanmar refugees, amid growing tensions surrounding the refugee population.
This should tell Sri Lanka something.
A refugee population does not remain merely a humanitarian issue.
Over time it poses issues related to housing, employment, education, healthcare, documentation, policing, social integration and public expenditure.
The refugee speaking in Geneva was demanding livelihood education health too.
That is precisely why Sri Lankan citizens must ask these questions before, rather than after, a temporary population becomes permanently established.
Compassion is not a solution for influx of refugees – in particular when those living demand citizenship in Sri Lanka. What audacity.
WHERE DOES SRI LANKA STAND LEGALLY?
Sri Lanka is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol and does not have a national asylum system.
UNHCR itself states that Sri Lanka does not have a national procedure for determining refugee status.
More importantly, UNHCR’s own current guidance states:
Registration with UNHCR in Sri Lanka as a refugee or asylum-seeker does not provide a right to stay in Sri Lanka.
And its 10 September 2026 guidance states that all foreign nationals require a valid visa to remain in Sri Lanka.
Being called a refugee does not automatically make someone a legal resident of Sri Lanka.
Being registered with UNHCR does not create a right to settle in Sri Lanka.
Appearing before an international forum does not create a right to remain in Sri Lanka.
Nor does the absence of a Sri Lankan refugee law mean Sri Lanka is open & free for anyone to enter & stay.
That is precisely why the issue must be dealt with through Sri Lankan law, immigration procedures and clearly defined Government policy — rather than allowing an international advocacy process to determine the country’s long-term immigration policy.
Humanitarian compassion does not mean surrendering Sri Lanka’s immigration sovereignty.
GENEVA CANNOT DECIDE WHO SETTLES IN SRI LANKA
Geneva is not Sri Lanka’s immigration authority.
A video appeal played at a UN forum does not change Sri Lankan immigration law.
Nor does the fact that an international audience hears a demand make that demand a legal entitlement.
The UN can hear.
Organisations can advocate.
Governments can negotiate.
But the question of who may enter, remain and settle in Sri Lanka must ultimately be determined under Sri Lankan law.
Nor should any international organisation, foreign government, NGO, political party, religious organisation or pressure group be allowed to turn humanitarian assistance into an automatic entitlement to permanent residence.
The question Sri Lanka must ask is:
WHO DECIDES WHO MAY ENTER, REMAIN AND SETTLE IN SRI LANKA?
The answer cannot be:
Whoever succeeds in creating the strongest international pressure or influence the Govt.
It must be:
Sri Lankan law.
AND NOW WE MUST ASK OUR OWN MUSLIM POLITICIANS AND ORGANISATIONS A VERY DIFFICULT QUESTION
If the argument is Muslim solidarity, then let us discuss Muslim solidarity honestly.
Why must a small non-Muslim island become the solution?
Why should Sri Lanka be encouraged to accommodate a population that even much larger Muslim-majority countries are struggling to accommodate?
Why should only Bangladesh carry more than one million?
Why should Malaysia carry nearly 200,000 registered refugees from Myanmar when there are over 50 Muslim-majority countries?
Why should non-Muslim Sri Lanka now be encouraged to take responsibility for another population?
If Muslim solidarity is the argument, where is the Muslim-world solution?
Why is Muslim solidarity being translated into demanding non-Muslim nations take Muslim refugees rather than a responsibility shared among Muslim-majority states?
Why should solidarity mean that Sri Lanka provides the land, housing, schools, healthcare and long-term public resources while others provide statements of support?
If the objective is genuinely to protect fellow Muslims, then Muslim-majority states with vastly greater financial and territorial capacity should be at the forefront of the solution.
There are 57 member states in the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.
There are wealthy Muslim-majority states with vastly greater financial resources
There are Muslim-majority countries with enormous territories.
There are countries with the economic capacity to construct housing, schools, healthcare systems and employment programmes.
So why is the solution always expected to involve the smaller countries?
And why should Sri Lanka be asked to carry this burden?
HUMANITY YES. PERMANENT SETTLEMENT — NO.
Let us be absolutely clear.
Humanitarian assistance does not mean:
- open-ended immigration.
It does not mean:
- permanent settlement.
It does not mean:
- automatic citizenship.
It does not mean:
- the right to bring relatives indefinitely.
And it certainly does not mean:
- Sri Lanka becoming the permanent destination for a crisis originating elsewhere.
SRI LANKA IS NOT AN EMPTY SPACE WAITING FOR OTHER COUNTRIES’ PROBLEMS
Sri Lanka is a small island with finite land, finite housing, finite employment opportunities, finite public services and finite resources.
Every additional permanent population has consequences.
It affects housing.
It affects schools.
It affects healthcare.
It affects employment.
It affects public expenditure.
It affects security and immigration administration.
A country is not required to ignore its own citizens simply because another country’s crisis is more visible internationally.
Sri Lankan citizens too have rights.
Sri Lankan children too need schools.
Sri Lankan families too need housing.
Sri Lankan youth too need employment.
Compassion cannot mean making the needs of Sri Lankan citizens invisible.
SRI LANKANS MUST ASK WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
Today there may be a few hundred.
Tomorrow there may be more.
Then families arrive.
Children are born.
Schools are required.
Housing is required.
Healthcare is required.
Employment is required.
Religious and cultural infrastructure is required.
Political representation is eventually demanded.
And suddenly what began as a humanitarian rescue becomes a permanent population issue and a resource issue.
By asking:
“Who authorised this?” years after the damage unfolds and pointing blame.
Is too late.
And precedent matters.
If Sri Lanka establishes a practice whereby people arriving temporarily can eventually obtain permanent residency or citizenship because they cannot find settlement elsewhere, what happens when the next group arrives?
What prevents the same demand being made again?
A Government must think not only about the people before it today, but about the precedent it creates for tomorrow.
This is precisely why the Government must establish the policy now, not after a permanent settlement has emerged and expands out of control.
THE GOVERNMENT OF SRI LANKA MUST ANSWER
- How many Rohingyas are currently in Sri Lanka?
- What is the legal status of each group?
- How did they enter Sri Lanka?
- Who authorised their entry?
- How many are registered with the Government & how many are notd?
- How many are registered with UNHCR?
- What security screening has been undertaken?
- Who pays for their accommodation, food, healthcare and other assistance?
- What is the duration of their permitted stay?
- What is the Government’s policy on future arrivals?
- Is permanent settlement being considered?
- Has any political party, religious organisation, NGO or foreign organisation requested permanent settlement or regularisation?
- What was the legal basis on which the Rohingyas currently in Sri Lanka were permitted to remain?
- What is the Government’s position on the request made at the UN Human Rights Council for citizenship or permanent residency?
- Has the Government received any formal request from UN agencies, NGOs, religious organisations, politicians or foreign governments concerning permanent settlement of Rohingyas in Sri Lanka?
- Has any Government authority given any assurance that Rohingyas currently in Sri Lanka, or future arrivals, will be permitted to remain permanently?
- What is the Government’s policy if a person cannot be repatriated or resettled in a third country?
And most importantly:
WHO HAS GIVEN ANYONE THE AUTHORITY TO TURN TEMPORARY HUMANITARIAN PROTECTION INTO PERMANENT SETTLEMENT IN SRI LANKA?
TO THE MUSLIM ORGANISATIONS AND POLITICIANS OF SRI LANKA
If you genuinely want to help the Rohingya, help them.
Raise funds.
Provide humanitarian assistance.
Help them obtain legal representation.
Lobby Muslim-majority countries to take them.
Lobby the wealthy Muslim states to finance the humanitarian response.
But do not lobby to make Sri Lanka the permanent home of a population simply because you believe your religious solidarity requires it.
And Sri Lankan citizens have another right: to know whether any political organisation is supporting permanent settlement because it sees a future political constituency in a newly settled population.
If such lobbying exists, it must be placed before the public openly.
No political party should be permitted to use immigration, humanitarian crises or refugee settlement as a mechanism for creating future electoral constituencies.
Sri Lanka is not obliged to solve the world’s refugee crises.
And Muslim solidarity should not mean transferring the burden to Sri Lanka & advancing electoral votes.
TO THE GOVERNMENT
Do not wait until this becomes irreversible.
Do not allow a humanitarian rescue to become a permanent immigration policy by default.
Do not allow Geneva, NGOs, political lobbying or religious pressure to determine Sri Lanka’s immigration policy.
Establish the legal position.
Establish the numbers.
Establish the security position.
Establish the costs.
Establish the duration of stay.
Establish the exit or durable-solution policy.
DO NOT ALLOW PERMANENT ROHINGYA SETTLEMENT IN SRI LANKA WITHOUT THE EXPLICIT AUTHORITY OF SRI LANKAN LAW.
TO THE PEOPLE OF SRI LANKA
This is not about hatred.
It is not about whether someone is Muslim.
It is not about denying food to a hungry person.
It is about:
WHO DECIDES WHO LIVES IN SRI LANKA?
A foreign organisation?
Geneva?
A political lobby?
A religious organisation?
An NGO?
Or the sovereign State of Sri Lanka acting under Sri Lankan law?
Sri Lanka has every right to be humane.
But Sri Lanka also has the right to say:
ENOUGH.
WE WILL HELP PEOPLE IN DISTRESS — BUT SRI LANKA WILL NOT BECOME THE ROHINGYA’S NEXT PERMANENT HOME.
And if the world believes the Rohingya crisis is a shared humanitarian responsibility, then let the responsibility actually be shared.
Bangladesh has carried its burden.
Malaysia is confronting its own burden.
Other countries must now step forward.
MUSLIM SOLIDARITY SHOULD NOT MEAN ASKING SRI LANKA TO CARRY THE BURDEN will majority Muslim states only campaign to keep them in non-Muslim states.
Sri Lanka can show compassion without surrendering sovereignty.
Compassion cannot be used to create a permanent obligation that Sri Lanka never agreed to assume.
Sri Lanka can rescue.
Sri Lanka can feed.
Sri Lanka can provide medical assistance.
Sri Lanka can protect people from immediate danger.
ONLY TEMPORARILY.
Decision of Permanent settlement
Cannot be made in Geneva.
It cannot be made by UNHCR.
It cannot be made by an NGO.
It cannot be made by a religious organisation.
It cannot be made by a politician seeking votes.
It must be made by Sri Lanka, under Sri Lankan law, in the interests of Sri Lanka and its citizens.
SRI LANKA WILL NOT BECOME THE ROHINGYA’S PERMANENT HOME.
Shenali D Waduge
