Brun_2010

7/29/2019 Brun_2010

1/19

Hospitality: Becoming IDPs and Hosts

in Protracted Displacement

C A T H R I N E B R U N

Department of Geography, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,Trondheim, [email protected]

MS received June 2009; revised MS received May 2010

The paper engages with Jacques Derridas writings on hospitality to discuss

how, in a situation of protracted displacement in Sri Lanka, policy categories

interact with local categories to make particular understandings of internally

displaced persons (IDPs) and their hosts. Using the notions of conditional and

unconditional hospitality, the paper first shows the political and ethical prin-

ciples underpinning local and international humanitarian discourses and prac-

tices for dealing with internal displacement. Second, the paper analyses how the

two categories of IDPs and hosts emerge, are negotiated and redefined by

looking at the hospitable engagements between the two groups. The paper ana-lyses how hospitality operates and governs the relationship between IDPs and

hosts and consequently shapes particular identities and rights. The paper con-

cludes by indicating the need to encompass both different international humani-

tarian approaches and local approaches in dealing with internal displacement.

Keywords: hospitality, hosts, displacement, Sri Lanka

Introduction

Categories are necessary to comprehend the world, but how we categorize has

profound social and political implications for people associated with the

categories and for ways in which people relate to each other. This paper

engages with Derridas writings on hospitality to discuss how, in a situation

of protracted displacement, policy categories interact with local categories to

make particular understandings of internally displaced persons (IDPs) and

their hosts. The paper goes beyond the familiar stories of disruption, loss

and marginalization crucial for our understandings of displacement and dis-

cusses the emergence and working of the categories IDPs and hosts.

Forced migration, the forcible movement of people from one place to an-

other, represents a throwntogetherness (Massey 2005) of people who will

have to relate to each other. Hospitality is applied to understand how, when

thrown together as a result of displacement, individuals and groups

Journal of Refugee Studies The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press.All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: [email protected]:10.1093/jrs/feq024

atUniversiteitvanAmsterdamonDecember2,2011

http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/

Downloadedfrom
http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/

7/29/2019 Brun_2010

2/19

transform into hosts and guests. In engaging with hospitality, I set out to

achieve three aims. First I seek to introduce the ethics and politics of different

policy approaches to internal displacementnotably what I term the UN/

Brookings approach and the ICRC approach. Second, I aim to show how the

policy discourses and practices with regard to internal displacement interact

with local discourses and practices so as to understand the emergence and

changing meaning of IDP and host categories. Practising hospitality takes

place between the ethics and politics of relating to others, and the third aim is

to analyse how these categories operate and govern the relationship between

IDPs and hosts and consequently shape particular identities and rights.

The particular case of protracted displacement used to analyse these pro-

cesses is the Muslims expelled from territories controlled by the Liberation

Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in northern Sri Lanka in 1990. The majority

of the approximately 75,000 expelled Muslims are still living as IDPs in theNorth Western Province of Sri Lanka where they were welcomed initially by

both Muslim and Sinhalese residents of the area. The work presented here is

part of a long term engagement with the protracted situation of displacement

that the Muslims from northern Sri Lanka have experienced. In this engage-

ment I have worked with people within the groups of both hosts and IDPs. I

first visited the area in 1994, but the research started as a PhD project in 1997

with fieldwork in several periods from 1997 to 2001. Since then I have visited

and spent time with the people there every year. Since early 2009, I have again

been involved more actively as a member of the Citizens Commission for thenorthern Muslims which aims to document the impact of their displacement

and to voice the heterogeneous experiences of displacement within the group.

In this paper I analyse the relationship of hospitality between Muslim hosts

and Muslim IDPs in Puttalam, Sri Lanka. In the first section of the paper I

discuss the different policy approaches to internal displacement and hosts. I

move on to explain Derridas theorizing on hospitality before introducing the

role of Muslims in Sri Lanka and the displacement of the Muslims from

the north of Sri Lanka in 1990. The third section shows the ways in which

the local and the international discourses operated in the process where thepeople in Puttalam welcomed the northern Muslims into their homes, and

how people became hosts and IDPs. The fourth section analyses how the

hosts welcoming attitude changed to make hospitality more conditional and

the fifth section follows this process by discussing in particular how negoti-

ations between the two groups impact on identities and rights. The paper

concludes by indicating the need for an approach that encompasses different

international humanitarian approaches and local approaches alike for dealing

with internal displacement.

The International Humanitarian Discourse on IDPs and Hosts

Policy categories1 are much discussed in forced migration studies (Bakewell

2008; Black 2001; Van Hear 1998; Zetter 1988, see debates in 1999 in Forced

2 Cathrine Brun



Downloadedfrom

7/29/2019 Brun_2010

3/19

Migration Review and between Hathaway, Cohen, de Wind and Adelman and

McGrath in JRS in 2007). It is possible to identify two key discussions here:

first, the relationship between the refugee and the IDP category and, second,

the problem of applying policy categories as analytical categories in research.

Less prominent in these discussions are the ways in which the policy cate-

gories operate and interact with local discourses, strategies and categories.2 In

this paper I concentrate on the latter and in order to understand such inter-

actions between international humanitarian policy discourses and practices

and local discourses and practices, I identify in this section two approaches

to internal displacement and their limited dealing with the so-called hosts.

By and large internally displaced persons has been accepted as a category

in our research and practice today. However, some contradictory views on

the application of the IDP category can be found, notably in relation to

assisting and protecting other vulnerable groups who have not moved butmay stay together with those labelled IDPs and may be in need of the same

protection and assistance as IDPs. It may be possible to identify two main

views and schools in this debate. On one side is the UN/Brookings-Bern

Project successful advocacy for internal displacement as a separate category

and the formulation of the Guiding Principles for Internal Displacement.3

The main line of reasoning for this view is that there is a need for a separate

category of internally displaced people because forced migrants are very

vulnerable and their experiences differ from those of people who are not

forced to move. IDPs consequently need special assistance and protection.The second approach may be termed the ICRC approach. Based on hu-

manitarian principles and realities in the field, the ICRC is critical of working

with internal displacement as a separate humanitarian category. On the

ground, the ICRC does not distinguish between IDPs and other civilians

affected by conflictat least in principle. Rather, in situations of armed

conflict and internal disturbances, the ICRC will give priority to those with

the most urgent needs, regardless of whether they have been forced to move

or not (Contat Hickel 2001; Krill 2001). Contat Hickel warns against the

discriminatory nature of the IDP approach because of the specific mechan-isms set up to respond to the need of one single category. The ICRC ap-

proach rests in the ethical principles of the humanitarian imperative of

impartiality, independence and neutrality.4 Borton et al. (2005) support this

approach and point to the practical difficulties on the ground in separating

IDPs from other vulnerable groups. Of particular concern here is that the

separate identification of IDPs is at odds with the humanitarian principle that

assistance should be determined by the needs and needs alone.

The discussion between these two schools of dealing with people forced to

move, but who have not crossed an internationally recognized boundary, is

an important starting point for the remainder of this paper: one school ad-

vocates the need for IDPs to be a separate category, the other school takes a

more inclusive approach as its starting point. In the ICRC approach, people

in need of assistance and protection among the host population would

IDPs and Hosts in Protracted Displacement 3



Downloadedfrom

7/29/2019 Brun_2010

4/19

potentially be assisted, but there is no discussion in either of the schools

about who the hosts are and what the meaning of hosts would potentially

be in situations of internal displacement. Hosts as a category has received

limited attention in forced migration studies and policies and is taken for

granted as a category that comes into existence when IDPs or refugees arrive.

Hosts are often called upon as an important category by referring to

Chamberss (1986) statement that hosts tend to be thought of as a single

entity summarized as host communities, the local people or the surround-

ing population. However, few attempts have been made first, to look expli-

citly at the heterogeneity and meanings of this category for people defined as

hosts. Second, there is not much work on how the hosts play a role in

shaping the category of IDPs. There are limited attempts to include hosts

in policies and programmes dealing with forced migrants. And finally, there

are few attempts to understand how the categories of IDPs and hosts arecreated, recreated and manifested on the ground in interplay between differ-

ent understandings, practices and discourses of hosts, IDPs and the meeting

between hosts and IDPs. It is the two latter points I discuss here.

Hospitality: Ethics and Politics of Relating to Others

The arrival of forced migrantsin this case IDPsin a new place represents

a throwntogetherness in which individuals and groups have to relate to one

another in new ways. Derrida discusses this relation as hospitality (1997,2000, 2001, 2005; Derrida and Dufourmantelle 2000). Derridas discussion of

hospitality is influenced by readings of Kant, Levinas and the phenomen-

ology of the stranger developed by Simmel (Benhabib 2006). Hospitality is, in

Derridas understanding, about ethics. It is the fundamental act of ethics and

of receptivity to the other. According to Benhabib (2006), hospitality com-

prises both an anthropologically and culturally limited encounter with the

other, and an ethical encounter with the other. In a number of essays, con-

versations, lectures and texts, Derrida discusses how we can understand the

relationship between the strangerthe otherand the host in the context ofimmigration, integration and cosmopolitanism. His work has inspired others

to use hospitality to unsettle the taken for granted relationship between host

and guest in the context of migration and the welcoming and reception of

migrants in practice and policies (Critchley and Kearney 2001; Deutscher

2007; Dikec 2002; Friese 2004; Ramadan 2008; Rosello 2001).

Derridas writings on hospitality concern the foreigner in general, the im-

migrant, the exiled, the deported, the stateless or the displaced person

(Derrida 2001: 4), but hospitality can also more generally be the manner in

which we relate to ourselves and to others. Derrida seeks to advocate a set

of cosmopolitan rights for asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants that

goes beyond state authority and legislation (Derrida 2000). He terms this

an unconditional hospitality which he describes as the ethical dimension

of hospitality. It is hospitality that makes no demand on the other and

4 Cathrine Brun



Downloadedfrom

7/29/2019 Brun_2010

5/19

welcomes the other without knowing in advance who or what the other

might be (Derrida 2001). Unconditional hospitalitythe total welcome

would require the right of refuge for all immigrants and newcomers

(Critchley and Kearney 2001). In unconditional hospitality, formulating

categories for indicating who should have the right to support or the right

to stay does not make sense. Here it is a more universal understanding

where rights to assistance are not based on where you are and who you

are. These ethical principles of unconditional hospitality towards the other

underpin the discourse and practices advocated by the ICRC, as mentioned

above.

The notion of unconditional hospitality is an uncomfortable and rather

unrealistic understanding of hospitality. It implies a total welcome where

the relationship between hosts and guests becomes unsettled and where a

host would abandon possessions and cede mastery of the home. It is unreal-istic because we have to have things to be hospitable with; the hospitable do

possess things, and the things remain theirs. Derrida tackles the dilemma

inherent in unconditional hospitality by introducing the double law of hos-

pitality (Derrida 2005). Together with unconditional hospitality, Derrida

introduces the law of conditional hospitality. While unconditional hospitality

is the ethics of hospitality, conditional hospitality is the political dimension of

hospitality: the right to welcome and be welcomed. It involves judicial prin-

ciples and institutional arrangements and is based on the distinction between

host and guest with a locational right at the centre. In the humanitariandiscourse of internal displacement as discussed above, conditional hospital-

ity could be represented by the UN/Brookings approach to internal displace-

ment with the accompanying Guiding Principles formulated to protect and

assist IDPs. The starting point for conditional hospitality is the rights and

entitlements associated with the category. The consequence of a conditional

hospitality is first, that internal displacement becomes an institutional respon-

sibility. It is in the power of the institutionlike the humanitarian commu-

nity or a governmentto decide who is entitled to be welcomed and defined

as an IDP and to decide who belongs to this category. Second, conditionalhospitality denotes a particular right to a particular place. It is the movement

of people and the status that determines their right to protection and assist-

ance. In conditional hospitality, assistance for people forced to move within

their own country becomes a question of having crossed a local boundary,

being defined as an internally displaced person and consequently being

granted a predetermined set of rights.

Derrida used the two understandings of hospitality to separate political

from ethical constraints. The tension between politics and ethics is a classic

tension in humanitarian ethics and Derrida formulates them as two contra-

dictory and equally justified imperatives. The two notions of hospitality must

co-exist, and it is between the two that decisions must be taken (Derrida

2005). This is, as Derrida states himself, a formidable challenge because of

their difference. However, there is no choice between the one or the other, the




Downloadedfrom

7/29/2019 Brun_2010

6/19

two forms of hospitality are always there. The politics and ethics of hospi-

tality do not exclude one another. With reference to the UN/Brookings and

the ICRC approach to internal displacement then, it should not so much be

that we select one or the other, but that we should rather acknowledge theneed for the two approaches to relate more to each other. Again, these two

approaches to internal displacement do not take place in a vacuum, but in

interplay with the concrete situations where displacement takes place.

In order to bring hospitality into this discussion, I first want to address the

question of how hosts become hosts and guests guests; who should welcome,

whose responsibility is hospitality? In this context, the institutional responsi-

bility is much stronger in conditional hospitality where it is subject to regu-

lative forces. Unconditional hospitality, on the other hand, is a more

universal responsibility in our dealings with others where the hosts, or the

established groups, would welcome newcomers based on a feeling of respon-

sibility for others.

Second, as mentioned above, hospitality requires having something to be

hospitable with. Analysing relations between forced migrants and their hosts

through hospitality must include understandings of structure, power and

inequalities. Here a challenge is the problem, and the necessity, of categories.

In an unconditional hospitality, the categories IDPs and hosts do not make

sense, but there is a need to differentiate not only institutionally and legally,

but also ethically between people in need of protection and assistance and

others.

Third, hospitality is fundamentally about ethics and a way of understand-

ing the encounter with the stranger. Hospitality takes place between the hosts

and the guests, governing the relationship between self and other

(Westmoreland 2008). Hospitality as an encounter with the Other shapes

identities of individuals and groups and the relationship between them.

Ramadan (2008: 665) shows how war reveals starkly the limitations of un-

conditional hospitality as an ethic for our relations with the Other.

Unconditional hospitality comes under pressure in the relationship with the

enemy as Other. In the case I turn to now, the Other is less obvious as it is

Muslims being welcomed by Muslims. However, even in this case the rela-

tionship between the two forms of hospitality is not clearcut; there is tension

between conditional and unconditional hospitality in the interplay between

international humanitarian and local discourses and practices.

6 Cathrine Brun



Downloadedfrom

7/29/2019 Brun_2010

7/19

Muslims, Muslimness and Spatial Politics in Sri Lanka

What were your first memories in the sense of being a Tamil in the south?

I had no sense of being a Tamil

No sense?

I had no sense at all of being a Tamil (Sivanandan 2009: 82).

There were no divisions between us at that time; we didnt think of Muslims

and Tamils as different. Only our religion was different, but in our minds there

were no divisions (from an interview in 1998 with a northern Muslim living as

an IDP in Puttalam).

When reading the interview with Sivanandan5 about his life in Colombo in the

1940s, I was struck by the similarities with my conversation with a northern

Muslim displaced by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) on the rela-

tionship between Tamils and Muslims in northern Sri Lanka in the early 1980s.

Both interviews show the importance ethnicity has gained in Sri Lankan society

since independence. In Sri Lanka Muslim is an ethnic category and identity, but

Muslims do not always share the cultural grammar with the Tamils and

Sinhalese. Partly as a result of this they have come within the shadow of Sri

Lankas dominant ethnic discourse of Tamils and Sinhalese (Ismail 1995).

Sinhalese and Tamil ethnicities refer to origin, religion,6 language and ter-

ritory. Sri Lankan Muslims, however, are defined as an ethnic group based

on religion. Their geographical distribution is a major determining factor of

the diversity of their culture, economy and their political behaviour (Nuhman

2007). There is a distinction between Muslims in the south and west and

Muslims in the north and east. Muslims of the north and east are primarily

cultivators and poor farmers living with the Tamil community (Knoerzer

1998). Muslims of the south and west tend to be a wealthier and more

urbanized group living with the Sinhalese community and involved in trade

and commerce (OSullivan 1999). Additionally, the Muslims in Puttalam

District (north-western Muslims) are distinct from both southern and western

and northern and eastern Muslims.

While Muslims represent a small minority of approximately 7 per cent of the

population,7 they have played a relatively major role in Sri Lankan politics

nationally by often supporting the majority Sinhalese political initiatives such

as the Sinhala-only language reform in 1956. Muslim politics have been domi-

nated by politicians from the south and west who found that their political

interests were best met through participation and integration with the majority

Sinhalese partiesnot with the Tamils (Knoerzer 1998; OSullivan 1999).

Although traditionally speaking Tamil, they now tend to speak the lan-

guage of the majority group at the place where they live. In the north

and east in particular, Muslims and Sri Lankan Tamils have intersecting

histories with many commonalities; they share many of the same cultural

traditions and they speak the same language. At the same time, however,

their histories have been very different and these differences have become




Downloadedfrom

7/29/2019 Brun_2010

8/19

more articulate during the conflict. With increasing emphasis on a separate

homeland for Tamils in the north and east from the 1970s, Muslims in

this area felt the need to state their own identity and claim their rights

as Muslims. Mobilizing on the basis of Muslim identities, a political

party, the Sri Lankan Muslim Congress (SLMC) was established in 1981.

Its charismatic leader, M. H. M. Ashraff, led the party to become a national

Muslim party till his unexpected death in a helicopter accident in 2000. The

SLMC has not been able to keep its national strength since 2000 and Muslim

politics have again become more regionally based.

The war between the LTTE and the government forces started in 1983.

During the 1980s Tamil militants became rougher in their dealings with

Muslims (Hoole 1993). There were increasing tensions between Muslims

and Tamils on issues of land, identity and support of the LTTE in the

north and east. The government also played a part in divide and rule stra-tegies between Tamils and Muslims. A complex web of alliances and of

sympathies and antipathies developed in the north and east. Some Muslims

continued to support and join the LTTE until 1990; other Muslims supported

other militant groups, and an increasing number of Muslims operated on

their own behalf, often with support from the government. Violence culmi-

nated in 1990 with the LTTE killing Muslims praying in mosques in eastern

Sri Lanka, and finally expelling Muslims from their homes in the north.

Becoming Internally Displaced and Hosts

75,000 Muslims were expelled by the LTTE from the northern areas under

their control in October 1990 (Hasbullah 2001). Experiences of expulsion, loss

of house and belongings, and the flight on foot through the jungle and by

boat in rough seas during monsoon rain played its part in constituting the

northern Muslims identities as IDPs. The majority of the displaced arrived in

Puttalam District in the North-Western Province. The local people in

Puttalamparticularly the Muslims but also the Sinhalese and Tamilswel-

comed the Muslims from the north into their homes, gardens and schools forshelter, and provided the displaced with clothes and food. In this process the

local population became hosts.

Although there is much variation in the way the categories of IDPs and

hosts are performed, these categories were formed and maintained as an

interplay between peoples experiences, practices, culture and institutional

practices. Two discourses in particular were instrumental in forming the cate-

gories: the discourse on Muslim ethics and ideals of generosity and hospital-

ity, and the humanitarian discourse on internal displacement.

The Discourse on Islamic Ethics and Ideals

The Prophet went into exile at Medina in AD 622, a key date because it con-

stitutes year one of the Muslim calendar. The Meccans who migrated with him

8 Cathrine Brun



Downloadedfrom

7/29/2019 Brun_2010

9/19

would be called the Muhajirun (literally migrants), [. . .]. His new adherents,

recruited from among the tribes of Medina, would be called the Ansar (aux-

iliaries, supporters). [. . .] The simplicity of their lodgings, their closeness to each

other, and their closeness to the mosque gave a democratic dimension to the

Islamic community that makes us all dreamdream about that lack of distancebetween the leader and his people. Thanks to the ease of exchange among the

Muhajirun and the presence of the mosque, the integration of the Ansar and all

the other new converts proceeded with rapidity. To accelerate the amalgamation

of Medinese and Meccans, Muhammad had recourse to some rituals that cre-

ated fraternal links: each Ansari was to accept a Muhajir as brother, for whom

he was to be, as it were, responsible for helping him to conquer the feeling of

uprootedness (Mernissi 1991: 30 and 111).

Principles of hospitality are shared by the Abrahamic religions (Derrida 2002;

Elmadmad 2008; Friese 2009). In the context of the northern Muslims arrivalin Puttalam, the Islamic value of welcoming strangers was presented as an

important act of generosity. It has been shown by several authors that grant-

ing asylum and refuge constitutes a moral and legal obligation in Islam

(Elmadmad 1991; Muzaffar 2001). Elmadmad shows how obligations of wel-

coming guests in Islam also encompass the obligation for all Muslims to

grant asylum and protection to any person who asks for it, whatever the

reason for his or her flight. Additionally, as Muzaffar shows, the role of

almsgivingzakathshould play a key role in financing refugee relief, re-

habilitation and development. The principle of zakath refers to compulsoryalmsgiving in deference to the rights of the poor and refugees.8 The signifi-

cance of the Prophet Mohammads flight from persecution in Mecca and

reception in Medina was often mentioned as an important dimension of

the arrival and reception of the northern Muslims in Puttalam. People com-

pared the displaced people with the Muhajiruns who had to flee, and the

locals who received them with the Ansaris, and thereby positioned them-

selves as hosts and displaced in Puttalam.

The Islamic discourse of unconditional hospitality is close to the ICRC

approach of unconditionalityit requires a total welcome and no separationbetween different categories of need. However, despite the language of un-

conditionality dominating the stories from Puttalam, Derrida (2005) shows

that the Islamic obligation means compulsion. Still, what is important is that

the Islamic obligations to receive and assist the displaced eased the phase of

reception, and provided a basis for rebuilding the lives of the northern

Muslims and for local integration processes. For the first month, the host

population was essential for the survival of the IDPs, and the role of the host

community was often referred to by the northern Muslims with immense

gratitude. All ethnic groups assisted the northern Muslims when they arrived

in Puttalam. But the Islamic discourse of hospitality was mainly pursued by

local Muslims and concerned the obligation by Muslims to assist their

Muslim brothers and sisters. In the following I focus mainly on this relation-

ship between the local Muslims and the displaced Muslims.




Downloadedfrom

7/29/2019 Brun_2010

10/19

The Humanitarian Discourse

A second discourse to influence the formation of the IDP and host cate-

gories in Puttalam was the humanitarian discourse. The ICRC was a major

actor in humanitarian operations in war affected Sri Lanka and assistedpeople displaced by the war and living in LTTE controlled areas. However,

it was the UN/Brookings-Bern approach that came to dominate the discourse

and practices dealing with people displaced by the war. Internally Displaced

Persons has become a well established term and category in Sri Lanka.

Today, the acronym IDP is a term commonly used by politicians, newspapers

and people in general. The term came into common usage through the myriad

of institutions, committees, organizationsgovernmental, nongovernmental

and multilateraland researchers working with and writing about displace-

ment. In fact, the term internal displacement was used in the country before itbecame an internationally recognized term. UNHCR played a key role in this

process, and the agencys involvement in Sri Lanka in the late 1980s and 1990s

contributed to shape the agencys policy in engaging with IDPs elsewhere.9

In 1993, Francis Dengs first country mission following his confirmation in

1993 as representative of the UN Secretary-General was to Sri Lanka

(Weiss and Korn 2006). The UN/Brookings group subsequently came in

and worked actively and successfully to make the IDP category known

in Sri Lanka, together with UNHCR which also worked to disseminate

knowledge about the category and the Guiding Principles to all levels of thegovernment administration (see, for example Jayatillake 2003).

These various initiatives paved the way for the established understanding of

IDP in Sri Lanka. As well as this, the Sri Lankan government embraced the

IDP category and utilized it as an opportunity to control peoples movements

and regulate peoples access to various rights and entitlements (Brun 2003).

In the case of the northern Muslims, the IDP category has become very

persistent. Most people thought the displacement would be temporary and

that people could return to their homes shortly. After the first month when

the hosts took the most active role in providing relief for the northern Muslims,

the humanitarian community moved into Puttalam to assist with establishing

welfare centres (camps), providing food, shelter and basic services. Along with

this process, the hosts to a large extent withdrew their assistance. The IDPs

became much more the responsibility of the humanitarian community than the

hosts. This is not a unique history in Sri Lanka. Hasbullah and Korf (2009)

show from the post-tsunami work in eastern Sri Lanka how the state initiatives

and humanitarian agencies largely replaced local initiatives.

From an Unconditional to a Conditional Welcome

[. . .] the host, he who offers hospitality must be the master in his house, he [ . . .]

must be assured of his sovereignty over the space and goods he offers or opens

to the other as stranger (Derrida 2000: 14).

10 Cathrine Brun



Downloadedfrom

7/29/2019 Brun_2010

11/19

Hospitality is often taken for granted as something we do to be good to

others. However, as discussed here, it is an ambiguous notion full of contra-

dictions (Dikec 2002). Derrida demonstrates how, to offer hospitalityto be

able to welcome someone into your homeone has to have control and

ownership of a place. It requires the right to a particular place and it involves

power and inequality in the relation between the host and the guest. The act

of hospitality performed by the Puttalam Muslims, indicated the control over

and right to Puttalam as their place. This welcoming did not take place in a

historical and socio-political vacuum. The Muslims in Puttalam have a his-

tory of longstanding negotiations over control of land, resources and busi-

nesses in the Puttalam area. Since the 1950sand particularly after the

change in language policies in 1956there has been a Sinhalization of the

area in terms of landownership, of government administration and busi-

nesses. Muslims still speak Tamil here and there are ongoing negoti-ationssometimes violentbetween Muslims and Sinhalese about the

control of resources and territories (Brun 2008). The residential pattern is

ethnically segregated and there is limited communication between Muslims

and Sinhalese people in the area. The arrival of the northern Muslims rep-

resented a manifestation of the Muslim control over the two divisions of

Puttalam and Kalpitiya which before their arrival had about 45 per cent

Muslims, 45 per cent Sinhalese and 10 per cent Tamils (Brun 2008).

The initial welcome was framed as unconditional. With the developments

that took place after their arrival, however, the welcome changed towards amore conditional hospitality. Together with what will often happen when

guests overstay and hosts become tired of being hosts, a most significant

reason for the move towards conditional hospitality was the sidelining of

the hosts in the process. The humanitarian operations made the host cat-

egory invisible and largely irrelevant beside the IDP category as a humani-

tarian label. Here, the strength of the guests played an important part; they

were very quick in organizing themselves and advocating for their interests

based on their common identity as displaced when realizing the entitlements

involved in the IDP category. As a group, the IDPs appear almost strongerthan the hosts.

The challenges experienced by the hosts varied according to their resources

and status. For example, landless hosts living on state owned land near the

IDP camps felt their homes were under threat because their right to stay

on the land was not clearcut in the first place. These factors were further

strengthened in 1994/1995 with the change of government. The new govern-

ment policies enabled the displaced people to buy land and receive support

to build permanent houses in Puttalam, which increased the pressure on land

in the area. Another dimension was the competing for local resources in

health services and university quotas. Health services have not improved

in relation to the population increase which has put existing government

health services under pressure. At the same time, university quotas did not

increase for the area, but all students sitting their O-level exam in Puttalam,




Downloadedfrom

7/29/2019 Brun_2010

12/19

including children of the IDPs, compete for university places in this area.

Over time, people in Puttalam have become more attentive to what they feel

are negative impacts of the settlement of the northern Muslims, despite the

economic development that seems to have taken place after their arrival

(Brun 2008).

Derrida shows how welcoming someone into your home can challenge your

sovereignty over that place. The perceived group strength of the IDPs and the

feeling of being sidelined as hosts by the humanitarian agencies changed the

local Puttalam peoples understanding of being hosts. Feelings of losing con-

trol over their homes made it necessary to reassert control. In this process,

the language of unconditionality turned to conditional hospitality. It was a

conditionality closely related to the political dimension and demographics

that could potentially have overturned the ethnic balance between Muslims

and Sinhalese in the area. In terms of livelihoods, for example, local peoplewould formulate restrictions on IDPs going fishing. And in terms of access to

local power and influence, the local mosque societies played a key role in

preventing IDPs from sitting on local Mosque Trustee Boards, which again

led to the displaced Muslims establishing their own mosques and further

segregation between the two groups.

Groups may come to identify themselves with categories initially formu-

lated by others (Jenkins 2008). In the case analysed here, the categories of

IDPs and hosts were shaped and are changed by peoples experiences and

practices as well as the intervention by outside humanitarian actors and in-stitutions, including government institutions. The interaction of local prac-

tices and discourses of dealing with displacement and the international

humanitarian practices and discourses made the two categories of IDPs

and hosts social groups in Puttalam. IDPs and hosts are categories

used as organizing principles in the society, determining access to resources

and influence over institutions. Hosts are today considered the legitimate

local citizens of the area, and for the humanitarian agencies, they represent

a group that the IDPs must live in peace with. In this context, the IDP

category has several meanings of varying importance for the internally dis-placed themselves. First, the category means that when labelled IDP, a

forced migrant is entitled to certain assistance and protection during displace-

ment. Second, an internally displaced person is out of place and does not

belong to the place where he or she stays as an IDP, but is only a guest and

temporarily present at the place of refuge. An IDP belongs to the place where

he or she fled from and this has implications for the access to rights and

entitlements at the place where he or she is living as displaced. The third

meaning of the category IDP is the right to return and assistance upon

return, which has been an important motivation for many northern

Muslims to keep identifying themselves with the category. For the local

people of Puttalam, they still express their identity as hostsand in particular

the meaning of being in their own place, and having the right to restrict

outsiders access to resources in the area.

12 Cathrine Brun



Downloadedfrom

7/29/2019 Brun_2010

13/19

Negotiating Muslimness and the Right to Stay and Leave

(. . .) hospitality should be neither assimilation, acculturation, nor simply the

occupation of my space by the Other. Thats why it has to be negotiated at

every instant, and the decision for hospitality, the best rule for this negotiation,has to be invented at every second with all the risks involved, and it is very

risky. Hospitality, and hospitality is a very general name for all our relations to

the Other, has to be re-invented at every second, it is something without a

pre-given rule (Derrida 1997: no page number available).

Hospitality is a response to the arrival of an Other and governs the relation-

ship between the host and guest. The case discussed here represents stories of

a hospitable community that opened their homes for people in need.

However, as elsewhere, when displacement became protracted, the hosts

became increasingly tired of being hosts. Being hosts implies a temporaryrelationship and when the guest does not leave, the attitude towards the

guest tends to change. Two decades on, most northern Muslims are still

living as IDPs in Puttalam. Some live on small plots of their own land,

some are still in camps, most still have the status of internally displaced

people. People in the area maintain very strong identities as IDPs and

hosts. After the war between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan Government

came to an end in May 2009, some northern Muslims began to return to

the north. However, this will be a long process, many people will not return

and most families will continue to have connections with Puttalam andpursue translocal strategies between the north and Puttalam.

Despite the northern Muslims and the Puttalam Muslims sharing ethnic

identities, the northern Muslims became the Other when they became the

guests in Puttalam. The maintenance of the identity as guest becomes an

important boundary marker to the host. In fact the hospitable engagements

resulted in a number of boundary markers becoming more explicit: the

troubled relationship between Muslims and Sinhalese in the area as discussed

above, the relationships between Muslims and Tamils in the north, the vari-

ous regional identities of Muslims in Sri Lanka and the relationship betweenlocal and international humanitarian discourses of assistance to those dis-

placed by the war.

This process of making the Other was expressed by hosts through the

reassertion of control over their homes as indicated above. However, for

the Puttalam Muslims, the arrival of the northern Muslims also reinstated

their regional identities as Muslimsdifferent from the northern Muslims.

The feeling of difference was clearly based on the differing histories, and for

the Puttalam Muslims, the arrival of the northern Muslims was a symbol of

the war in the north coming closer; could they trust people who had lived

with the war, what kind of violence did they bring with them? There was also

much negotiation about being Muslimsabout Muslimness. In some ways

the negotiations have clearly brought the two groups closer. For example,

Middle East influences have increased a common Muslim identity and




Downloadedfrom

7/29/2019 Brun_2010

14/19

women among both groups dress more like each other and more often use the

hijab. Still, however, the northern Muslims are seen as being closer to Tamils,

sharing their customs, traditions and culture. The arrival of the northern

Muslims in Puttalam represented a threat to the Muslimness of local

Muslims who would often state, in referring to Tamil practices and customs,

that this is not our culture and as such distance themselves from the north-

ern Muslims. The northern Muslims on the other hand would proudly an-

nounce their Tamil language as the pure Tamil in contrast to the Puttalam

Muslims Tamil. Negotiations still continue that from time to time result in

violent encounters between northern Muslims and local Muslims (Brun 2008;

Thalayasingam et al. 2009).

The arrival of the northern Muslims in Puttalam started as a hospitable

relationship where an unconditional hospitality was prominent. Over time,

the particular interplay between the humanitarian and the local perspectiveson internal displacement has created a situation where the northern Muslims

are still living as guests in Puttalam with a conditional hospitality. While the

hosts felt the need to reassert control over their homes, there has been an

increasing consciousness among the displaced of losing out in comparison

with their hosts in areas of education, livelihoods and influence over local

institutions. Living as guests with conditional hospitality resulted in the

northern Muslims failing to become full local citizens in Puttalam, although

they are entitled to do so. There has been limited political will on the part of

local politicians, politicians among the northern Muslims and the nationalgovernment to make northern Muslims local citizens in Puttalam.

In Derridas double imperative of hospitality, the relationship with the

Other takes place in the tension between conditional and unconditional hos-

pitality. As I have shown, unconditional hospitality is no longer prevailing in

Puttalam. When hospitality is only conditional, IDPs becomes an isolated

category that can be separated from the hosts. People labelled IDPs can more

easily be controlled and their citizenship rights more easily denied. IDPs are

granted assistance and refuge based on locational rights, but when the war is

over, they are understood as out of placethey need to return. While someare happy to return, many feel that after almost 20 years in Puttalam, re-

turning to the north is like being displaced again. When relations of hospi-

tality are no longer operating between unconditional and conditional

hospitality, the northern Muslims are stripped of agency and basic rights

they no longer have a choice of where to live as full members of society.

Conclusions: Hospitable Engagements and the IDP/Host Categories

As stated in the introduction to this paper, categories are necessary for com-

prehending the world. Categories are used to bring order into a situation

when institutions may not have means to assist everyone in need. However,

formulating categories always has individual and social implications for those

assigned to them. The discussion of hospitality creates an understanding of

14 Cathrine Brun



Downloadedfrom

7/29/2019 Brun_2010

15/19

the principles underpinning humanitarian categories and how humanitarian

practice is developed and implemented in the interplay with local perspectives

of dealing with displacement.

The arrival of the northern Muslims in Puttalam became a space of hos-

pitable engagements (Ramadan 2008). Both unconditional and conditional

hospitality were present in the way people related to each other as IDPs

and hosts. In the early stages of the displacement, the hosts pursued an

unconditional hospitality grounded in the principles of Islam and their iden-

tities as Muslims. Later a conditional hospitality became dominant with the

humanitarian community and the government taking more responsibility and

as a result making the hosts irrelevant. In the process, regional Muslim

identities were negotiated and strengthened and the categories of IDPs and

hosts were established as social categories and identities.

The categories of IDPs and hosts do not simply represent a binary rela-

tionship between two groups of people. A key question becomes whether

within a nation state, labels based on a locational right (belonging to par-

ticular places within the country), such as the IDP label defined by the

UN/Brookings approach, should form the basis of protection and support.

In this context, it seems nave to think that such universal categorieslike the

ICRC approach and Islamic hospitalitymay be less political. In Puttalam,

the Muslim obligation to be hospitable was presented as an unconditional

hospitality, but as Derrida notes the element of compulsion also makes

Islamic hospitality conditional. Along the same lines, Elmadmad (2008)

argues that the gap between theory and practice is deep in the Muslim

world, where no Muslim states today actually practise Islamic principles.

She still argues for using the Islamic principles of hijra (forced migration/

asylum) and hospitality for developing refugee law and protection. A key

question relates to responsibilities: responsibilities of institutions in dealing

with internal displacement, the general responsibility we all have towards

others, and how these two forms of responsibility should interact.

Thinking of internal displacement as hospitable engagements requires the

inclusion of hosts as active participants in the displacement process. From

Derridas discussions of hospitality we can learn that hospitable engagements

should take place as a double imperative of unconditionality and condition-

ality. Allowing for the negotiations between conditional and unconditional

hospitality, and for both understandings to prevail in the assistance of in-

ternally displaced and their hosts, requires opening up the different

approaches to internal displacement. But my argument here is that the two

international humanitarian approaches to internal displacement need to

engage more actively with the local ways of dealing with displacement.

First, we need the two humanitarian approaches to internal displacement

(the UN/Brookings approach and the ICRC approach) to talk more to

each other, to continue negotiations that can open up new understandings

for how to deal with displaced populations. Second, and above all, we need




Downloadedfrom

7/29/2019 Brun_2010

16/19

to engage with the way people themselves deal with displacement in order for

people to get back on their feet and become full members of their societies.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the two reviewers for their constructive and very

generous advice on the first draft of this paper. I would also to thank V.

Ushantini, Subadra Hudson, A. G. Anees for research assistance, Nicholas

Van Hear for inspiration and Ajmeer Khan and family and Mahomoda and

family who have always welcomed me back to Puttalam. Earlier versions of

this paper were presented at IASFM in Cairo in January 2008 and a work-

shop on critical approaches to internal displacement at Refugee Studies

Centre, Oxford, in June 2008.

1. Categorization is a basic process of arranging people, objects and phenomena into

categories for comprehending and understanding the world. Categorization is a

routine and necessary contribution to how we make sense of, and impute predict-

ability to a complex human world (Jenkins 2008). A category is a class whose

nature and composition is decided by the person who defines the category. A

category, according to Jenkins, may be contrasted with a group, defined by the

nature of the relations between its members. As I show in this paper, categorization

of individuals and populations in social sciences and among policy makers con-

tributes to constituting people as subjectsand objectsof assistance andprotection.

2. I am not in this paper concerned with looking at the causality of the categories and

their nature as analytical categories, but rather aim to focus on the emergence and

consequently, the constitutive nature of those categories. See Wendt (1999) for a

discussion on the difference between causal and constitutive nature of categories.

3. The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement set out in one document the

international human rights obligations that are binding through international trea-

ties and how these obligations are applicable in situations of internal displacement.

According to Carr (2009), they remain soft law and as such are non-binding.

4. The ICRC is often directly involved in assisting IDPs. Often, as discussed byAeschlimann (2005), due to the severity of their needs and their often greater

vulnerability, IDPs may be the object of more attention from the ICRC than the

resident population. This is in conformity with the principle of impartiality, which

requires that the ICRC act on the basis of needs and vulnerability.

5. A. Sivanandan grew up in Sri Lanka. He left the country in 1958 and later became

the director of the Institute of Race Relations in London.

6. Most Sinhalese are Buddhists and most Tamils are Hindus, but a large proportion

of both groups are also Christian (mainly Roman Catholics).

7. There has not been a complete census in Sri Lanka since 1981. In that census, it is

believed that Sri Lankas population of approximately 18 million consisted of74 per cent Sinhalese, 19 per cent Tamils (Sri Lankan and Indian Tamils) and

7 per cent Muslims.

8. Principles of welcoming refugees and giving zakath are referred to in the Quran

(see, for example, Quran 8: 7071 and 59: 8). However, according to Hoffman

16 Cathrine Brun



Downloadedfrom

7/29/2019 Brun_2010

17/19

(Encyclopaedia of the Quran) the enormous emphasis on hospitality in Islamic

culture is derived from pre-Islamic Arab values and draws its greatest validation

in hadith.

9. According to Jens et al. (2002: 4), UNHCR was present in Sri Lanka since 1987 to

assist with the repatriation and reintegration of Tamil refugees from India. Therepatriation programme continued intermittently (when conditions allowed) until

1995. At the same time, UNHCR became progressively more involved with

Sri Lankas growing population of IDPs, many of whom were to be found in

the same areas to which the refugees were returning. Jens et al. show how, in

1990, the Government of Sri Lanka formally asked UNHCR to provide assistance

to IDPs on both sides of the conflict, an arrangement that was formalized in 1993

through a Memorandum of Understanding between UNHCR and the Sri Lankan

government: The extension of UNHCRs mandate to cover assistance to IDPs in

Sri Lanka was agreed by the UN Secretary-General in 1991 and reaffirmed in a

March 1997 letter from the UN Secretary-Generals office, stating that UNHCRmay continue to co-ordinate the UN efforts for humanitarian assistance for

internally diplaced persons in Sri Lanka. Clarance (2007) shows how

UNHCRs dealings with IDPs in Sri Lanka were taking place amidst much internal

controversy in the refugee agency. In Puttalam, the new Government under

President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunge reasserted its responsibility for

the IDPs in the area (Brun 2008).

ADELMAN, H. and MCGRATH, S. (2007) To Date or to Marry: That is the Question.

Journal of Refugee Studies 20(3): 376380.

AESCHLIMANN, A. (2005) Protection of IDPs: an ICRC View. In Protecting and Assisting the

Internally Displaced, Forced Migration Review Supplement, October. www.fmrreview.org,

accessed 2 January 2008.

BAKEWELL, O. (2008) Research beyond the Categories: the Importance of Policy Irrelevant

Research into Forced Migration. Journal of Refugee Studies 21(4): 432453.

BENHABIB, S. (2006) Another Cosmopolitanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

BLACK, R. (2001) Fifty Years of Refugee Studies: from Theory to Policy. International

Migration Review 25(1): 5718.

BORTON, J., BUCHANAN-SMITH, M. and OTTO, R. (2005) Support to Internally

Displaced Persons: Learning from Experience. Sida: www.sida.se/publications, accessed 1

May 2005.

BRUN, C. (2003) Local Citizens or Internally Displaced Persons? Dilemmas of Long Term

Displacement in Sri Lanka. Journal of Refugee Studies 16(4): 376339.

BRUN, C. (2008) Finding a Place: Local Integration and Protracted Displacement in Sri Lanka.

Colombo: Social Scientists Association.

CARR, S. (2009) From Theory to Practice: National and Regional Application of the Guiding

Principles. International Journal of Refugee Law 21(1): 3447.

CHAMBERS, R. (1986) Hidden Losers? The Impact of Rural Refugees and Refugee Programs

on Poorer Hosts. International Migration Review 20(2): 245263.

CLARANCE, W. (2007) Ethnic Warfare in Sri Lanka and the UN Crisis. London: Pluto Press.

COHEN, R. (2007) Response to Hathaway. Journal of Refugee Studies 20(3): 370376.

CONTAT HICKEL, M. (2001) Protection of Internally Displaced Persons Affected by

Armed Conflict: Concept and Challenges. International Review of the Red Cross

83(843): 699711.

CRITCHLEY, S. and KEARNEY, R. (2001) Preface. In Derrida, J. (ed.) On Cosmopolitanism

and Forgiveness. London: Routledge, pp. viixii.




Downloadedfrom

7/29/2019 Brun_2010

18/19

DERRIDA, J. (1997) Politics and Friendship: A Discussion with Jacques Derrida. Centre for

Modern French Thought, University of Sussex. http://hydra.humanities.uci.edu/Derrida/

polfr.html, accessed 23 June 2009.

DERRIDA, J. (2000) Hospitality. Angelaki 5(3): 3318.

DERRIDA, J. (2001) On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness. London: Routledge.DERRIDA, J. (2002) Acts of Religion. New York: Routledge.

DERRIDA, J. (2005) The Principle of Hospitality. Parallax 11(1): 69.

DERRIDA, J. and DUFOURMANTELLE, A. (2000) Of Hospitality. Stanford: Stanford

University Press, Translated by Rachel Bowlby.

DEUTSCHER, P. (2007) Already Lamenting. Deconstruction, Immigration, Colonialism.

In Schott, M. and Klercke, K. (eds) Philosophy on the Border. University of Copenhagen:

Museum Tusculanum Press, pp. 4362.

DEWIND, J. (2007) Response to Hathaway. Journal of Refugee Studies 20(3): 381385.

DIKEC , M. (2002) Pera Peras Poros: Longing for Spaces of Hospitality. Theory, Culture &

Society 19(12): 227247.

ELMADMAD, K. (1991) An Arab Convention on Forced Migration: Desirability andPossibilities. International Journal of Refugee Law 3(3): 461481.

ELMADMAD, K. (2008) Asylum in Islam and in Modern Refugee Law. Refugee Survey

Quarterly 27(2): 5163.

FRIESE, H. (2004) Spaces of Hospitality. Angelaki 9(2): 6779 (translated by James Keye).

FRIESE, H. (2009) The Limits of Hospitality. Paragraph 32(1): 5168.

HASBULLAH, S. H. (2001) Muslim Refugees: The Forgotten People in Sri Lankas Ethnic

Conflict. Nuraicholai: Research and Action Forum for Social Development.

HASBULLAH, S. H. and KORF, B. (2009) Muslim Geographies and the Politics of

Purification in Sri Lanka after the 2004 Tsunami. Singapore Journal of Geography 30(2):

248264.

HATHAWAY, J. C. (2007) Forced Migration Studies: Could we Agree just to Date? Journalof Refugee Studies 20(3): 349369.

HOFFMAN, V. (20012006) Hospitality and Courtesy. In McAuliffe, J. D. (ed.) Encyclopaedia

of the Quran. Brill, Leiden, pp. 449454.

HOOLE, R. (1993) Massacre of Muslims and its Meaning for Tamils. Pravada 2(2): 1824.

ISMAIL, Q. (1995) Unmooring Identity: the Antinomies of Elite Muslim Self-representation in

Modern Sri Lanka. In Jeganathan, P. and Ismail, Q. (eds) Unmaking the Nation: The Politics

of Identity and History in Modern Sri Lanka. Colombo: Social Scientists Association,

pp. 55105.

JAYATILLAKE, D. (2003) Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement: Reflections from Sri

Lanka during the year 2001. In Brun, C. and Birkeland, N. M. (eds) Researching Internal

Displacement: State of the Art, Conference proceedings Trondheim 78 February 2003, ActaGeographica Series A, No 6. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.

JENKINS, R. (2008) Social Identity. London: Routledge.

JENS, N., LAVY, R., MULAKA, A. and CRISP, J. (2002) UNHCRs Programme for Internally

Displaced Persons in Sri Lanka. Report by a joint appraisal mission by the UK Department of

International Development and UNHCR. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Evaluation and Policy Analysis Unit, Geneva.

KNOERZER, S. (1998) Transformation of Muslim Political Identity. In Tiruchelvam, M. and

Dattathreya, C. S. (eds) Culture and Politics of Identity in Sri Lanka. Colombo: International

Centre for Ethnic Studies, pp. 136167.

KRILL, F. (2001) The ICRCs Policy on Refugees and Internally Displaced Civilians.

International Review of the Red Cross 83(843): 607627.MASSEY, D. (2005) For Space. London: Sage.

MERNISSI, F. (1991) Women and Islam: An Historical and Theological Enquiry. Oxford:

Blackwell.

18 Cathrine Brun



Downloadedfrom
http://hydra.humanities.uci.edu/Derrida/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://hydra.humanities.uci.edu/Derrida/

7/29/2019 Brun_2010

19/19

MUZAFFAR, S. A. F. (2001) Practicable Ideals? A Proposal for Revitalizing the Rights of

Forced Migrants in Islam. Journal of Refugee Studies 14(3): 250275.

NUHMAN, M. A. (2007) Sri Lankan Muslims: Ethnic Identity within Cultural Diversity.

Colombo: International Centre for Ethnic Studies.

OSULLIVAN, M. (1999) Conflict as Catalyst: the Changing Politics of the Sri LankanMuslims. In Gamage, S. and Watson, I. B. (eds) Conflict and Community in Contemporary

Sri Lanka: Pearl of the East or the Island of Tears? New Delhi: Sage Publications,

pp. 253278.

RAMADAN, A. (2008) The Guests Guest: Palestinian Refugees, Lebanese Civilians and the

War of 2006. Antipode 40(4): 658577.

ROSELLO, M. (2001) Postcolonial Hospitality: The Immigrant as Guest. Stanford: Stanford

University Press.

SIVANANDAN, A. (2009) An Island Tragedy. New Left Review 60, (Nov/Dec): 7998.

THAYALASINGAM, P., LOKUGE, G. and MUNAS, M. (2009) Making Peace, Keeping Peace:

A Study on Community Conflict Management in Puttalam. Colombo: Centre for Poverty

Analysis.VAN HEAR, N. (1998) Editorial Introduction. Journal of Refugee Studies 11(4): 341349.

WEISS, T. G. and KORN, D. A. (2006) Internal Displacement: Conceptualization and its

Consequences. London: Routledge.

WENDT, A. (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

WESTMORELAND, M. W. (2008) Interruptions: Derrida and Hospitality. Kritike 2(1): 110.

ZETTER, R. (1988) Refugees and Refugee Studies: A Label and an Agenda. Journal of Refugee

Studies 1(1): 16.




Downloadedfrom

Brun_2010

Documents

Transcript of Brun_2010