Concluding Discussion: Troubled Past, Harsh Present, and Uncertain Future
Conflicts are not easily replaced by a peaceful state of existence (Moore 2000). Moving from war to postwar represented profound transitions in young people's lives in Eastern Sri Lanka.
This chapter has shown that a state of postwar as defined above had not been fully reached in Eastern Sri Lanka in 2014 when fieldwork ended. The accounts of young people's experiences and strategies during and since the war show that the concept “postwar” does not fully describe present realities. In the multiple transitions that take place in the process of moving from war to a postwar situation, not all of the changes had reached far enough or included all relevant groups.Loss of family members, properties, homes, education, and livelihoods became imprinted on young people's lives and their communities during the war. After war, the level of security increased and violence decreased gradually while some losses were not fully recouped, such as access to jobs and education. As documented in this chapter, multiple deprivations and immobilities from the war continue to be created postwar - both socially and spatially - leading to frustrations instead of increasing hopes for a safe, peaceful, and just society among the youths studied (see also Sommers 2013).
Exclusion of youth in conflict-affected communities due to lack of jobs and education is according to Sommers’ (2009) key factors that need to be addressed in postwar contexts. Employment creation for youth in postwar countries should be considered as a peace-building measure (Izzi 2103). The paper has shown that associated with education and employment are injustices relating to ethnicity and the histories young people have brought with them from living through war. Such aspects need to be addressed in the process of moving from war to postwar.
The interrelated dimensions of social and spatial mobilities represent a useful starting point for understanding both the continuities and changes that young people have experienced and are contributing to in Eastern Sri Lanka.
Some of the continuities are linked to persistent insecurity and uncertainty in young people’s lives, while some of the changes that have taken place in the course of transition, reinforcing and redefining the insecurities and uncertainties that young people experience in their lives. Furthermore, the inability to speak Sinhala prevents young people from having opportunities elsewhere in the country and contributes to the sense of disillusionment and loss of trust in the government.If postwar issues pertaining to youth are not adequately tackled, problems such as economic exploitation and stigmatization may contribute to young people turning back to violence (McEvoy-Levy 2006; Azmi and Lund 2010; Kurtenbach 2014; McLean Hilker 2014). Additionally, research has documented how post-conflict situations must address community level processes in addition to cater for the needs of families and individuals (Betancourt et al. 2014). In such a perspective socialization of youth into adulthood stands at the center of postwar recovery. It is of great concern that little emphasis is currently present - in policy and practice - to enable youth to participate more actively in the ongoing recovery processes. Although the young people we talked to are, to some extent, able to navigate the restrictions they experience, many also do not feel like full members of society. They perceive the Sri Lankan government as disinterested in protecting them and facilitating their inclusion in the nation state, even though they were Sri Lankans and felt that they did not belong to a separate state. This is a good opportunity for the postwar policymakers to include the youth in recovery programs as they can contribute to the future development of the country in general and East in particular. Sri Lankan policymakers might learn from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lebanon, and South Africa (Jeffrey and Staeheli in press), where efforts are made to produce young people as good citizens through a process of “learning.” The Sri Lankan government has, however, mainly focused on infrastructural measures for recovery. Young people’s experiences of exclusion in Eastern Sri Lanka point instead to the need to take socioeconomic, cultural, and political aspects into account, as recovery has a broader meaning. It seems pertinent to include in this a quest for distributive justice (actions that may benefit less advantaged groups in postwar Sri Lanka) and a quest for corrective justice (actions which may restore a situation of rightful distribution of both benefits and resources in the country).