Helping Sri Lanka more meaningfully

Interventions which aid recovery and include relief with dignity should be the basis of any future assistance

The economic crisis in Sri Lanka has significantly reduced incomes, reduced the availability and affordability of food and thus increased the risk of food insecurity, particularly of the most vulnerable households.

Lower income groups and war-affected families in the north and east have little or no cash reserves, and limited access to resources such as land. The problem is more acute among women-headed households, people with disabilities, former combatants, the working class, marginalised caste groups and plantation workers who, due to multiple historical injustices such as discrimination and statelessness, have been systemically denied access to resources. These groups, who have been exposed to immediate shocks amid long-term stresses, will bear the brunt of the economic crisis as food stocks deplete and production costs soar. The depreciating Sri Lankan rupee and the lack of foreign exchange have made it enormously difficult for the island to import even the most basic essentials, including food and medicines. As a consequence, the cost of staple food items such as rice, bread and daal have increased by over 50% in the last six months alone.

India has emerged as the foremost partner for Sri Lanka at this time. It has provided assistance of about $3.5 billion this year to manage the shock caused by this economic catastrophe, compounded by the government’s incompetence, mismanagement and corruption. As Sri Lankans receive food aid from Tamil Nadu with gratitude, some questions about the transparency and impartiality of the government’s distribution of the same have already arisen.

Meanwhile, there is a need for more thoughtful assistance to the people, especially the poor, who will only be worse off in the coming months. Some also fear that they might be left out of the government’s recovery efforts, led by an International Monetary Fund programme that will likely prescribe austerity. In this context, the Indian government and the people of Tamil Nadu could go beyond relief and explore supporting an employment guarantee scheme, drawing from the experiences of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, for a dignified and sustainable recovery of the economy.

Social safety nets provided by the Sri Lankan state are either inadequate or ineffective. There is no functional public distribution system. The maximum monthly household cash transfer (LKR 4,000, or about ₹900) provided through Samurdhi, the government’s poverty alleviation programme, is grossly insufficient.

A work guarantee scheme assuring working people of 100 to 120 days of work annually could provide relief. Compensation for this labour could be made 70% in kind, such as rice partly procured in Sri Lanka, along with wheat, daal, and other pulses not available locally, and kerosene. The remaining 30% could be paid in cash to the worker. The food component combined with cash will ensure that families are protected from inflation. This will support their emotional, physical and nutritional well-being in a dignified way. ‘Work’ could include strengthening agricultural infrastructure by repairing embankments, channels, and drainage. It could include providing care for children, the elderly and patients. This would be especially helpful for working women and those with old and terminally ill family members looking for a carer. Internships or on-the-job traineeships could even involve and be funded by the private sector in India through Corporate Social Responsibility projects.

The United Nations estimates that 50 lakh people, or about 20% of Sri Lanka’s poorest, are at highest risk. Aid from India could target this group. By reaching 10 lakh families, or approximately 15% of Sri Lanka’s households, this aid could reduce market demand for food and help control demand-driven inflation, thus retaining food prices within reasonable limits for other sections of the population as well.