Funeral of Pattani Razeek | Photo courtesy of Deutsche Presse Agentur

(Editors’ note: The report below is a follow-up from the last update about Mr. Pattani Razeek’s case, which was published on 17^th August 2011 and can be read here.)

1. Background and key events:

Mr. Pattani Razeek was a Sri Lankan Human Rights Defender who disappeared on 11^th February 2010. At the time of his disappearance, Mr. Razeek was the Managing Trustee of the Community Trust Fund (CTF) (www.ctfsrilanka.org) and an Executive Committee Member of the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) (www.forum-asia.org).

For over a year following the disappearance, there was no credible action by the police to investigate the case despite several leads. The chief suspect Shahadbeen Nowshaadh was not arrested until July 2011, despite being identified by police in May-June 2010.  The family, Puttlam Mosque Committee and those campaigning for justice in the case believe that the failure to arrest Nowshaadh is due to the involvement of Minister Rishad Bathiudeen, the Minister of Trade & Commerce under the current Government.

Arrests of Suspects:  The chief suspect, Nowshaadh was arrested by the Colombo Crimes Division (CCD) in Killinochchi on 9^th July 2011 in connection with Mr. Razeek’s abduction. The second suspect, Mushdeen was arrested by the CCD on 15^th July from Kollonnawa.  Soon after Mushdeen’s arrest, Minister Rishad Bathiudeen told a member of the Puttlam Mosque Committee that Mushdeen’s wife approached him to secure Musdeen’s release, but that he had refused to intervene in the case.

Exhumation (28^th July 2011): On 25^th July, Mr. Razeeks’ son, Riskhan was told by the Director, CCD that the police had received information from suspect Mushdeen that Mr. Razeek’s body had been buried in a village in Vallaichchenai and that police would be travelling to Vallaichchenai for further investigations. Riskhan accompanied the police to Vallaicchenai and on 28^th July, a body believed to be that of Mr. Razeek was exhumed from Thuraiaddy Street, Kavaththamunai, Vallaichchenai based on the information provided by suspect Mushdeen.

Riskhan identified the body as Mr. Razeek’s from his hair and underwear. The body had been wrapped in a sheet and buried in a pit about 4 ½ feet deep, inside a half built abandoned house belonging to Mushdeen’s aunt. The exhumation took place in the presence of the Vallaichchenai Magistrate A.M. Riyal, the Officer in Charge (OIC) of the Vallaichchenai police, several CCD officers, Mundalama police, the Judicial Medical Officer (JMO) Batticaloa Mr. Tikiri Banda Gunethileke, Scene of Crime Officers from Batticaloa, and the suspect Mushdeen. Journalists and civil society members were also present at the time.

Post Mortem: On 28^th July 2011, the body was taken to Batticaloa Hospital by the Vallaichchenai police. The post mortem was conducted on 2^nd August at 10 am at the Batticaloa Hospital. Before the post mortem, Riskan and two of Razeek’s brothers were allowed inside and identified the body as the remains exhumed in Vallaichchenai. The JMO also recorded Riskhan’s statement that he believed M. Nihamath, former Trustee General of CTF, to be responsible for Razeeks’ killing.

The post mortem ended at 1.30pm on 2^nd August, and the body was released to family members based on an order by the Vallachchenai Magistrate. The order mistakenly referred to the exhumation being conducted on 4^th July (instead of the correct date 28^th July), but when this was pointed out to the CCD officers, they assured that this would not be a problem to transport the body or in future court proceedings. Riskan, Ruki Fernando of Law & Society Trust, Mr. Razmi from the Puttalam Mosque Committee and several others noted the discrepancy. Mr. Razeek’s funeral was held on 3^rd August in Sameeragama Puttalam.

DNA Report/Government Analyst Report: Samples of Mr. Razeek teeth, skin, hair, etc were taken by the CCD and sent to the Gene Tech lab for DNA testing on 4^th August 201. Mr. Razeek’s son, Riskhan supplied blood to the Gene Tech Lab on 8^th August 2011.  Stomach samples from Mr. Razeek’s body were sent to the Government Analyst on 5^th August 2011. We do not have court proceedings which indicate whether the postmortem report and the DNA report have been submitted to Court.  However when Riskhan called Genetech regarding the DNA report on 2^nd February 2012, he was informed that the DNA report will be submitted to court in two weeks.

2. Police Inquiries & Court Proceedings

There are currently three police cases (B Reports) pending before the Magistrates Court (MC) in Puttalam (Mr. Razeek’s hometown) and in Pollonnaruwa (place of abduction) based on separate complaints by the Razeek family and CTF. The Puttalam MC case BR177/10 was filed on 16^th February 2010.  The Pollonnaruwa MC case AR 142/2010 had been filed by the police on 4^th March 2010. A further case B 651/11 was filed by the police on 13^th July 2011 to investigate the ransom calls made to the Razeek family following his disappearance.

From 16^th February 2010 until after the arrest of Nowshaadh on 9^th July 2011, Mr. Razeek’s family, the Puttalam Mosque Committee and lawyers and civil society groups campaigning for justice in this case, focused only on proceedings of the case before the Puttalam MC BR 177/10. However, there has been only one hearing of this case since  27^th July 2011 and the submissions on police investigations following the arrest of suspects Nowshaadh and Mushdeen, are being made to the Pollonnaruwa MC in case No.651/2011.

Police Case (B Report BR 177/10/P) pending before the Puttalam MC: Case filed by police on 16^th February 2010 based on the police complaint (No.CIB 01 389 / 187) filed by former CTF trustee Ms. Jensila Majeed to the Puttalam Police on 15^th February 2010.  In around May 2010 police identified Shahabdeen Nowshaadh, a former CTF employee, as the chief suspect in Razeek’s disappearance. Police linked Nowshaadh to the disappearance by tracing calls made from Razeek’s phone number to Razeek’s family after the disappearance. The calls were traced through the phone EMEI number to a phone registered to Nowshaadh. Nowshaadh filed an anticipatory bail application to the Puttalam Magistrates Court on 15^th June 2010. The court rejected his application on 23^rd June 2010 following which Nowshaadh filed a revision petition to the Puttalam High Court details of which are given below. There appears to have been no significant progress in this case until the arrest of the chief suspect Nowshaadh on 9^th July 2011. The last hearing of the case was on 17^th January 2012.

Anticipatory Bail (Revision Petition) (HCR 08/10) concluded in the Puttalam High Court: Following the rejection of his anticipatory bail application by the Puttalam Magistrates Court on 23^rd June 2010, Nowshaadh filed a revision petition to the Puttalam High Court  on 20^th October 2010, challenging the decision of the Magistrate not to grant bail.   In his petition, Nowshaadh admits to meeting Mr. Razeek on 11^th February 2010 and to being in the same area (Pollonnaruwa) at the time that Mr. Razeek disappeared. He also stated that he is a close aid of Minister Rishard Bathiudeen and that his arrest would harm the Minister. This case was dismissed on 28^th July 2011, following Nowshaadh’s arrest by the CCD on 9^th July 2011.

Police Case (B Report A.R 142/2010) before the Pollonnaruwa Magistrate Court:  Case filed by police on 4^th March 2010 based on complaint (CIB 02 33/175) filed by Mr. Razeek’s wife to the Mundalama Police on 12^th February 2010[i].  Proceedings in the B 651/2011 before the Pollonnaruwa MC states that the case (AR 142/2010) was filed by the Pollonnaruwa police regarding investigations carried out in Pollonnaruwa into the disappearance. Proceedings state that police recorded statements from several persons including those who travelled in the van with Mr. Razeek to Pollonnaruwa.

Police Case (B Report B 651/2011) before the Pollonnaruwa Magistrate Court:  B report filed by police on 13^th July 2011, to investigate ransom calls made to Mr. Razeek family, demanding LKR 20 million (approximately USD 170,000) to secure his release. This case is in addition to AR 142/2010 before the Pollonnaruwa MC.  Police submitted that Shahabdeen Nowshaadh and Musdeen had been identified as suspects in Mr. Razeek’s abduction.  On 26^th July 2011, the police submitted that Nowshaadh had made a statement to police that Mushdeen had told him that he had abducted and killed Mr. Razeek. The police also submitted a statement from Mushdeen that he had abducted Mr. Razeek in order to punish him for supporting the LTTE and that he had tied his hands, feet and face with a cloth and left him alone. When he returned 20 minutes later, he realized that Mr. Razeek had died. Mushdeen told police that he buried Razeek in an abandoned house belonging to his aunt in Vallaichchenai.  On 3^rd August 2011, the police submitted a report on the exhumation of a body believed to be that of Mr. Razeek in Vallaichchenai.

On 12^th August 2011, suspect Nowshaadh was produced before the Pollonnaruwa Magistrate and remanded to the Pollonnaruwa Remand Prison. Police submitted that samples of Mr. Razeeks’ body have been given to Gene Tech for DNA testing on 4^th August, 2011. Mr. Razeek’s son Rizkan had provided a blood sample to Genetech on 8^th August 2011. The contents of Razeeks stomach were sent to the government analyst on 5^th August 2011.  The van (no 59-6113) in which Mr. Razeek is believed to have been abducted had been taken into police custody on 1^st August 2011 in Kandy.  The police submitted that so far the investigations have revealed that several more people were involved in Mr. Razeeks abduction.

According to the lawyer representing the Razeek family, on 7^th September 2011 suspect Mushdeen was produced before the Pollonnaruwa Magistrate court and is currently in remand in the Pollonnaruwa Remand Prison.  The last hearing of the case was held on 2^nd February 2012. The next hearing is scheduled on 16^th February 2012.

Bail Application (Nowshaadh) (No. 77/2011) in the Pollonnaruwa High Court: Nowshaadh filed a bail application to the Pollonnaruwa High Court on 13^th October 2011 and was released on bail on 3^rd November 2011. Case concluded.

Bail Application (Mushdeen) in the Pollonnaruwa High Court: Lawyer for the Razeek family has informed us that Mushdeen filed a bail application to the Pollonnaruwa High Court on 2^nd February 2012. The next hearing of this case is scheduled for 16^th February 2012.

Land case before the District Court, Puttalam (No. 57913):  On 7^th December 2011, the Puttalam police filed a land case before the District Court Puttalam to resolve a land dispute between Mr. Razeek’s brother and Mr. M. Nihamath’s relatives who lived near Mr. Razeek’s residence in Mundalama. The next case date is due on 15^th February 2012. Mr. Nihamath’s relatives left the village following the exhumation of Mr. Razeek’s body out of fears for their safety. They have not returned to the village to date. Details of the dispute between Mr. Razeek’s family and Nihamath’s relatives are provided below.

3. NHRC Inquiry

The Razeek family filed a complaint with the NHRC on 15^th February 2011 (HRC/619/10).  There appeared to be no progress in the case until Riskhan was summoned to an inquiry on 4^th July 2011, over a year later. The Inquiry was conducted under no. HRC/621/10/I – iv. On 18^th July 2011, at a special meeting with the family and representatives of lawyers, Puttalam Mosque Committee and members of civil society, the chairman and commissioners of the NHRC committed to conduct the inquiry and to keep the family updated on any further developments in the police case.

At the NHRC inquiry on 26^th July 2011, the Inquiry Officer told Mr. Razeek’s son-in-law, a member of the Mosque Committee and a lawyer that the following a lead given by a suspect that Mr. Razeek’s body was buried in the Oddamvadi area in Vallaichchenai.

At the NHRC inquiry on 20^th September 2011, a CCD officer informed Riskhan and the lawyer that the CCD did not have evidence to arrest or question M. Nihamath in connection with Mr. Razeek’s abduction and killing. The CCD said that several witnesses put forward by the family had refused to make statements to the police. Riskhan told the police, that several CTF trustees and staff had not been questioned by the police and were willing to make statements. The NHRC offered to accept signed affidavits by CTF trustees and staff and submit them to the police.

However on 6^th October 2011, the NHRC refused to accept an affidavit by CTF founder trustees M.S. Rafeek, H.S. Firdous and Jensila Majeed regarding Nihamath’s involvement with CTF and Mr. Razeek’s disappearance and calling for a full investigation into the motives underlying Mr. Razeek’s abduction and killing. The affidavit was rejected on the ground that it did not include a statement that the affirmants would be willing to make statements to the police in this regard. The NHRC asked that an amended affidavit be provided on 12^th October 2011. However, the affirmants have been advised against submitting such a statement by their lawyers since it may impact their credibility as witnesses in the murder trial. There is no further date for the NHRC inquiry.

On 1^st February 2012, the Director of Investigations NHRC, informed a lawyer inquiring into the case, that three complaints had been filed with the NHRC regarding Mr. Razeek’s disappearance;

1. HRC/ 619/10 submitted by Mrs. Noormihar Razeek (Razeek’s wife) on 18^th February 2010
2. HRC 3170/10 submitted by Mr. A. M. U Jaufar (Razeek’s son-in-law) on 15^th September 2010 to the NHRC in Puttalam.
3. HRC 621/2010 submitted by the Executive Director of Forum Asia on 18^th February 2010 by post.

The Director of Investigations also said that the NHRC was keen to continue its inquiry in the case, but that proceedings had stalled due to the failure of Razeek’s family and lawyers to submit affidavits of witnesses who were willing to assist the police investigation in the case. The officer also stated that the failure to submit a DNA report was a matter in which the NHRC could intervene.

4. Meeting with the IGP: At a meeting held at the Defence Ministry on 23^rd August 2011to discuss violent incidents which took place in Puttalam following a Grease Devil attack, Mr. Razmi, Secretary of the Mosque Committee raised Mr. Razeek’s case with the Inspector General of Police (IGP) who was present at the meeting. He told the IGP that the Razeek case was being delayed and a credible investigation prevented due to the intervention of a prominent politician. He also said that there were tensions between the local community and the Northern Muslims over the Razeek case, Mr. Razeek being a member of the local Puttalam community. He asked the IGP to conduct effective inquiries into this case. The IGP told Mr. Razmi that he would look into the matter but no further information is available about what action has been taken to date by the Police.

5. Dispute with M. Nihamaths’ Relatives in Sameeragama

Shortly before Mr. Razeek’s funeral, Mr. Nihamath’s relatives who live in a land near Mr. Razeek’s home in Sameeragama, moved out of the village due to fears for their safety. When they tried to return to the village on around 6^th August, they were prevented from entering their compound by a group of villagers. Riskhan, Azam (Mr. Razeek’s son-in-law) and other family members were also present at the time. Following this altercation, Nihamath’s relatives filed a complaint with the Mundalama police accusing Mr. Razeek’s family including Riskhan and Azam and the villagers of assaulting them and preventing them from entering their home. That evening the police visited Mr. Razeeks home to inquire into the incident.

Razeek’s family informed the Puttalam Mosque Committee about the incident. Nihamath’s relatives also met with the Puttalam Mosque Committee and asked them to intervene in the case. The Puttalam Mosque Committee agreed to intervene, provided the police complaint against Riskhan was withdrawn. Following this the complaint was withdrawn by Nihamath’s relatives.

At a meeting with the Puttalam Mosque Committee and Razeeks’ family, at the Grand Mosque Puttalam, Nihamath’s relatives asked to be allowed to remove their belongings from the compound in Sameeragama. Mr. Razeek’s family said that they could not guarantee the safety of Nihamath’s relatives and asked that the matter be mediated with the villagers by the Puttalam Mosque Committee and the local Mosque Committees in Sameeragama and Perukuwattan.

On 13^th August 2011, a meeting was held at Mr. Razeeks’ home in Sameeragama with the Puttalam Mosque Committee, and the Sameeragama and Perukuwattan Mosque Committees to settle the matter. Following this meeting, Nihamath’s relatives were permitted to remove their belongings on 16^th August 2011.

To date, Nihamath’s relatives have not returned to the village. The land in which they were living, originally belonged to Mr. Razeek’s brother P.M. Mahroof who maintains that Nihamath’s family were allowed to occupy the land based on an agreement between Mr. Razeek and Nihamath. Mr. Mahroof states that he is the owner of the land and has refused to allow the family to re-occupy the land in Sameeragama.

On 21^st November 2011, Nihamath’s family filed a second complaint with the Mundalama police, naming 10 persons in the village including Riskhan as preventing them from returning to their home. Rizkhan and family members went to the police on around 28^th November 2011, Riskhan suggested that the matter be resolved through the Puttalam Mosque Committee. However since there is a dispute regarding ownership of the land, the police filed a case in the District Court, Puttalam on 7^th December 2011.  The case was last heard on 1^st February 2012 and the next hearing is scheduled 15^th February 2012. Pending a final determination in the case, a watcher has been placed in the compound by Nihamaths’ relatives.

6. Threats/Intimidation against the family and Mosque Committee

There have been no known threats against Mr. Razeek’s family or the Mosque Committee since the last update on 17^th August 2011.

However, at a meeting in Puttalam on 8^th December 2011, the mosque committee stated that Mowlavi Abdullah had received a threatening message from number +94773863256 on 12^th Januaary 2011, following a speech made by him to mark the Haj Festival at the Baka Mosque in Puttalam. In his speech, Mowlavi Abdullah stressed that the two communities must not be divided based on Mr. Razeek’s disappearances and that they must work together to defeat the elements which try to divide them. The message sent to Mowlavi Abdullah accused him of being a Muslim Prabhakaran who is trying to evict displaced Muslims from Puttalam. (This is being reported here for the record, as this was not included in the update of 17^th August 2011)

On 16^th January 2012, President of the Puttalam Mosque Committee, Mr. Muzammil was summoned to the office of the Assistant Superintendant of Police and asked to give a statement regarding the killing of policeman in Puttalam in August 2011 in a violent incident following a grease devil attack. Mr. Muzammil was told that a petition had been submitted by the Puttalam Organizer for Minister Bathiudeen accusing the Mosque Committee of inciting the violence in Puttalam on 21^st August 2011 which resulted in the killing of the policeman.

7. Summary / Conclusion:

It appears that the police have not made any significant progress in Mr. Razeek’s case. For several months the police failed to submit a post mortem report in the case. The lawyer for the family believes that a post mortem report was submitted to court but she has not been shown the report and the family has no further information on the progress of the investigation. It appears that the DNA report has not been submitted to court to date.

The date and method used to kill Razeek is not clear.

To the best of our knowledge, the police have made no move to apprehend or question several others implicated in the case including;

• Mr. Irshard, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister Rishard Bathiudeen, who stated publicly, in October 2010, that Mr. Razeek was held by the Defense Ministry;
• Persons travelling in the vehicle with suspect Musdeen, in which according to the suspect, Mr. Razeek was abducted;
• Persons travelling with suspect Nowshaadh, who admitted to meeting Mr. Razeek in Polonnaruwa on the day he disappeared. According to Nowshaadh, he and several others were travelling in a vehicle belonging to the Resettlement Ministry, headed by Minister Bathiudeen at the time;
• Minister Bathiudeen and Mustafa Nihamath, former CTF Trustee General and currently employed at the World Food Program in Colombo. The Razeek family and the Puttalam Mosque Committee believe that M. Nihamath is a key suspect in the case and that his involvement merits further inquiry.  Before the postmortem on 2^nd August 2011, Mr. Razeek’s son Riskhan clearly told the JMO that he believed M. Nihamath to be involved in his father killing. At Mr. Razeek’s funeral on 3^rd August thousands of those present chanted slogans calling for the arrest of M. Nihamath and Minister Bathiudeen.

8. Some key local & international appeals and statements

• The UN human rights office of the High commissioner, Briefing note on Sri Lanka and Malawi, Spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights: Ravina Shamdasani, on behalf of Rupert Colville, 29^th July 2011, available at, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=11273&LangID=E
• Amnesty International, Urgent Action: Remains of Sri Lankan Defender Exhumed (Index Number: ASA 37/010/2011), 29^th July 2011, available at http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA37/010/2011/en/60e694d6-4055-4943-ae6d-2e2c2456f015/asa370102011en.pdf
• Front Line Defenders, Sri Lanka: ‘UPDATE – Arrest of chief suspect in the disappearance of human rights defender Mr. Pattani Razeek’, 12^th July 2011, available at, http://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/15261
• Observatory (OMCT-FIDH), ‘Sri Lanka: Exhumation of a body suspected to be that of the forcibly disappeared Mr. Pattani Razeek’, 29^th July 2011, available at, http://www.omct.org/human-rights-defenders/urgent-interventions/sri-lanka/2011/07/d21358/
• The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), The body of the disappeared human rights activist Pattini Razeek exhumed, 29^th July 2011, available at, http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-STM-099-2011.
• The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), Sri Lanka: Ensure justice in the death of Pattani Razeek, 29^th July 2011, available at http://www.forum-asia.org/?p=10818

9. LLRC Report

The Report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission at page 162, specifically mentions the lack of police action in Mr. Razeek’s case[ii]. The Commission states that;

(Paragraph) 5.31 ‘Among the many disturbing allegations concerning missing persons submitted to the Commission by the general public, especially during its visits to conflict-affected areas, the case of Mr. Razik Pattani in Puttlam, is referred to here on account of the Commission’s own disappointing experience concerning that case. It highlights the deplorable absence of conclusive law enforcement action, despite the Commission itself bringing this case to the attention of the concerned authorities of the area. Mr. Razik’s body was reportedly discovered while the Commission was writing its report. Timely action could probably have saved this life.

(Paragraph) 5. 32 Mr. Razik who had been an official of an NGO providing assistance to the IDPs in Puttalam was abducted allegedly due to the fact that he had questioned the manner in which some of the expenditures have been incurred by the NGO as well as the purchase of some properties under the names of some of its directors. When inquires were made from the relevant Deputy Inspector-General of Police in the area as to why there was a delay in arresting the alleged abductor following a court order, he has reportedly said that the police was not aware of the suspect’s whereabouts and if the people know where he was, let the police know so that they could arrest him. It was alleged in this regard that the suspect evaded arrest due to his “political connections”. If this is established, it must be mentioned that such an attitude would completely erode the public confidence, in particular in the Police, and make the maintenance of law and order much more difficult. The Commission is equally concerned that undue political interference has also contributed to the lapses on the part of the Police.’

by Deanne Uyangoda and Ruki Fernando

• Who Killed Razeek?
• Manufacturing claymores in the Sinhala media – Media ethics withering on the vine
• The case of Jaseekaran and the Rule of Law in Sri Lanka
• The ‘Grease Devil’ Phenomena in Sri Lanka: A Brief Collation of Reports
• Mano Ganesan on his experience of the anti-Tamil riots in July 1983

From 19 – 27 May 2010, Groundviews ran a special edition on the end of war in Sri Lanka. Over this week alone, the site received over forty-thousand readers and exclusively featured over eighty-thousand words of original content, one video premiere, over a dozen photos, generating over one hundred and fifty-thousand words of commentary.

By popular request, The End of War in Sri Lanka: Reflections and Challenges, a compilation of content that appeared online in PDF form, was first released in May 2010. In mid-2010, it was published in print form. Today, we are relaunching the book as a free iBook on Apple iTunes. It is available as a direct download in 32 countries and regions, and readable on both the iPad 1 and 2 using iBooks. Ironically, Apple’s Sri Lankan iTunes store does not list the book, but you can easily download it to your Mac or PC using this link (138Mb iBook). Once downloaded, importing it to iTunes and synchronising it with your iPad is a cinch, and takes just a few seconds.

In his review of the book, Prof. Sasanka Perera, Professor of Anthropology and Head, Department of Sociology, University of Colombo, noted:

Therefore the pieces contained traverse a wide terrain that includes the rational, clinical, accommodating, hopeful, hope-less, post war scenarios of the future, politics of diasporas and so on… To me, that variation is the reality of our post war existence. Our experience is not linear; our perceptions not black and white across the board; our take on the past and the future not a monolithic reality. What is unfortunate is that the reality of this variation has not emerged in the popular and the dominant discourse on war, conflict and peace in the country.

Another review by Channa Wickremesekera, a military historian and novelist based in Melbourne Australia noted,

The most cursory glance at some of the websites that showcases opinions from those whose first language is truly Sinhalese will show that it is still the Wimal Weerawansa’s rather than Kalana Senaratne’s who make opinions of Sri Lankans, even in cyberspace. They are still dancing the victory dance, expecting the Tamil in the room to join in singing Sinhala bailas or to leave the room altogether… Groundviews, I am sure, has no pretensions to having the power to shift heaven and earth which is what, it appears at times, is required to change the direction the country is heading in. Yet, despite that seeming impotence, the collection of articles also presents a pleasing prospect. It shows that there are still at least a few of us who recognise that the end of the war has not ended the conflict as long as we do not deal with the Tamil in the room, fairly and justly. It may make a few other decent people stop and think, even feel. That would be a modest victory but a victory nevertheless.

The new iBooks edition of the book takes over 40 contributions, including high definition video and high resolution photography, and beautifully presents them on the iPad. Content automatically resizes for orientation, presenting text in a clear, crisp format. Photos by Aufidius, Deshan Tennekoon, Sharni Jayawardene and others can be viewed as thumbnails, and pop out in high resolution. Alongside the article by its producers who were the first to visit the Vanni after the end of the war, the trailer of the award winning documentary The Truth That Wasn’t There plays in high definition. iBooks on the iPad also offers the ability to annotate the text and easily email these notes (which Apple calls study cards). When connected to the Internet, each article has a link to access the online version, with all the comments generated still archived.

It is quite simply a new way to engage with content, and Groundviews is pleased to offer, for free, a book that is of enduring value to scholars, historians, political scientists and the average reader. Using poetry, prose, photography and video, The End of War in Sri Lanka: Reflections and Challenges for the iPad demonstrates the potential not just of the device and Apple’s iBook Author to bring content alive, but also the power of new media to present inconvenient truths in a compelling manner.

• Groundviews now formatted for iPad
• Sri Lanka’s and South Asia’s first citizen journalism iPhone app
• Long Form journalism: An invitation to contribute
• Launch of Groundviews 2.0: New features, enhanced readability, comprehensive search
• Send us content for publication

“The bloody massacre in Bangladesh quickly covered over the memory of the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia, the assassination of Allende drowned out the groans of Bangladesh, the war in the Sinai Desert made people forget Allende, and so on and so forth until ultimately everyone lets everything be forgotten.”

Milan Kundera[1]

“…. Some [intellectuals] served as spokesmen for power or for a constituency, trimming their beliefs and pronouncements to circumstances and interest: what Edward Said once called “the fawning elasticity with regard to one’s own side’ has indeed “disfigured the history of intellectuals.”

Tony Judt.[2]

His Excellency Dr Dayan Jayatilleka has been good enough to respond to my critique of his position with regard to the merits of the current government of Sri Lanka.[3] Let me first deal with his view of my original comments on his intellectual and political practices; then I will go to the heart of his response.[4]

Readers of Groundviews know, better than most, Dr Jayatilleka’s fondness for name-dropping. Famous names in themselves are harmless; it all depends on the use or misuse one makes of them. Therein lies the rub and my title: A Man for all political seasons.

He says:

“MCC accuses me of “idealisation of the current government of Sri Lanka”. That’s plain silly, and he would find it impossible to back it up with a single quotation or example, while none of those he has furnished amount to anything remotely approaching idealisation.”

He adds that he defends the elected government of Lanka and its leadership selectively and hardly uncritically. (Groundviews, January 16, 2012)

By idealisation I mean Dr Jayatilleka’s exalting of President Rajapaksa above the normal run of Sri Lankan politicians.  Let’s look carefully at Dr Jayatilleka’s polemic Marking the Mahindra Moment in Lankan Politics (Groundviews, September 11, 2011). The title itself is epic; the picture attached shows the President at his most handsome and commanding. An image reinforced by emphasis on the following facts: Sri Lanka is a competitive democracy (true), and the President currently has a 90 per cent rating approval (true).  Yet, interestingly, no analysis is made of this in the light of the country’s past experiences of initial euphoria and subsequent disillusionment with other charismatic rulers. Critics of the regime are dismissed, being out of touch with the people and (inevitably) lackeys of the West. Why? According to Dr Jayatilleka, during the period of Wickramasinghe’s ‘appeasement’ of the West and the Tigers, “Mahinda proved lucid, balanced and in touch with the people’s accurate perception of the enemy.” (Groundviews, September 11, 2011)

These patriotic qualities are just as important in post-war Lanka:

“Any attempt to contain divert, pressure, outflank or exceed President Rajapaksa’s quintessential if protean centrism, would be socially suffocating, choking the pores of free expression, resulting in a more hawkish, less flexible, less intuitively smart, more brittle and therefore more vulnerable Sri Lankan state.” (Groundviews, September 11, 2011)

Dr Jayatilleka goes on to say that not only is President Rajapaksa a steadfast, patriotic ruler, he might be the best person to construct a more liberal and democratic Sri Lanka, because “after all, what is a more liberal and social democratic Mahinda Rajapaksa than the fusion of Mahinda Rajapaksa as President and Mahinda Rajapaksa as youthful, dissenting, rather rebellious left-of-centre Parliamentarian, in government and Opposition, backbench and cabinet, in the 1970s, ‘80s and ‘90s.” (Groundviews, September 11, 2011)

Reading this, the word protean (also used by Dr Jayatilleka) comes to mind: “Of pertaining to, or characteristic of the sea-god Proteus of classical mythology; taking or existing in many forms, changing and variable”.[5] Protean centrism (a concept favoured by Dr Jayatilleka) means that the political centre is wherever the President wishes to take the country – praise not bestowed on critics of the President or other political parties and figures in Lanka, be they of the right, left or centre. In fairness I must say he is kinder to the son of his former political patron Premadasa:

“Today President Rajapaksa is the best representative of National Democracy and the UNP reformists identified with young Premadasa, the best bet for (pluralist) Social democracy”.[6]

Dr Jayatilleka’s support of the Rajapaksa government is not selective; it is touchingly uncritical.

His summary of the threats to the nation state might be as follows:

(a)   Diaspora and Tamil Nadu based pro-Tiger secessionism and external hegemonic interventionism and (b) Ranil Wickremasinghe and his UNP as the domestic political alternative. (Groundviews, January 16, 2012)

The reality is the LTTE as a military force is finished and its support base is in tatters. Ranil Wickremasinghe is neither a traitor nor even a mild threat to national security; he is part of the status quo. Western pressure was in the form of words, not actions. One cannot compare this to the pressure placed on Iran.

Criticism of government policy is something a democratic government should be able to deal with – part of its very essence. The most important issue, and one on which the good doctor is silent, is how to best harvest the peace dividend. The government and its charismatic President should use the euphoria of victory to enlarge the democratic space instead of closing it.

Why does Dr Jayatilleka not criticise his patron for removing the Presidential limit of two terms (the 18^th amendment)? The President himself, not an independent commission, will oversee the running of elections. The executive powers of the President, already considerable, have now been expanded to the selection of the judiciary and officers of the armed forces. The vital oversight committees for the allocation and spending of public monies were usually under the chairmanship of the opposition parties. They are now under the control of ministers appointed by the President. All this undermines the checks and balances affecting the executive arm of government, the judiciary, the state bureaucracy and the armed forces.[7] Choking not enlarging the very – ‘pores of free expressions’.

One must reject simplistic binary notions on national liberation struggles versus a nation state. Life and politics are complex. One cannot equate the homicidal quasi-Maoist Shining Path with the struggle of the FRETILIN against the Indonesian army. One can condemn (as I did) the wanton bombing of Serbia by NATO in 1999, yet not dismiss Noel Malcolm’s research on the rights of the people of Kosovo.

Research that showed the history for the Serbs started in the seventh century, when they settled in the Balkans. They only conquered (not settled in) Kosovo in the 13^th century. They ruled Kosovo for 250 years, until it became part of the Ottoman Empire in the mid-15^th century. So there is no more continuity between Byzantium Greece and modern Greece as there was between a medieval Serbian state and today’s Serbia. The Serbs reconquered it in 1912. When they did, the Serb population in Kosovo was less than 25 per cent. Kosovo was incorporated (i.e. not conquered) by the Yugoslav state. Till the breakup of that Yugoslav state it was not only a part of Serbia but also a part of the federation of Yugoslavia. It had its own parliament and government and was represented by at the federal level not by Serbia, but by its elected representatives.[8]

This is not nonsense but historical facts. Serbia and Croatia deliberately started to break up the Yugoslav state; it encouraged separatists in Bosnia breaking down Bosnia’s rich multi-cultural heritage. The barbarity of the Serbian proxies in the siege of Sarajevo was unspeakable. Their atrocities and Western reluctance to stop them in Srebrenica is now on the public record and to deny it is sheer political mendacity. The killing of thousands of men and the forcible movement of tens of thousands of women and children from their homes (many of the women were raped multiple times) are no longer creditable allegations, they have been proven. Are we going to deny the women whose husbands and sons were killed, their day in court? Instead of dismissing this it should be acknowledged and criticised. What needs to be also made clearer and prosecuted is the role of Western forces in the massacre. As I have said these examples resonate but not in the way Dr Jayatilleka wants them to.

The heart of Dr Jayatilleka’s polemic concerns the alignment of Lanka with the countries he deems anti-imperialist. They have formed a block against the liberal forces from the West who want nation states to have negotiated settlements with minorities in their midst. Lanka under the leadership of Rajapaksa rejected this approach. The diplomats of Lanka foiled attempts at any censure in the UN of the conduct of the war. This was done with the support of anti-imperialist countries. Lanka and Russia helped by other member states of the UN, successfully deflected human rights concerns expressed about Chechnya and Lanka. Dr Jayatilleka played a prominent role in this, and even cites a critic, David Lewis,[9] who it seems supports Dr Jayatilleka’s contention as to the real choices that prevailed when he supported Rajapaksa. (Groundviews, January 16, 2011)

What does Lewis actually say? He sees the peace process as flawed from the outset. Key sections of the Lankan elite were hostile to it. There was no consensus amongst the political elite for the peace agreement. Once Ranil Wickremsinghe lost power in 2004, the support for the peace process began to fade. And fortune was on the side of Lankan government: the rise of China in the region, along with that of powers like Brazil and Russia, who were economic and political competitors with the Western powers. They also had restive minorities and were more inclined, therefore, to support the Lankan state. And post 2001 it was easy to use Western rhetoric on the war on terror to gain logistic, financial and political support.

I would emphasise that the Lankan state’s best recruiting tool was the LTTE and its autocratic leader, the late Velupillai Pirapaharan. The LTTE suppressed political pluralism and freedom of expression. If Eelam were achieved it would be plausible to assume that it would be an oppressive one-party state. The Lankan state could with equal plausibility make the claim that they were fighting a terrorist group. (Lewis, 644-655). Lewis fails to mention that the Lankan military and the LTTE both paid only lip service to the peace process and violated its tenets many times. During the peace process, the Lankan military, with the help of its Western and ‘anti-imperialist’ backers built up a formidable fighting force of around 100,000 men who were fully equipped and had the logistical and tactical support of a modern air force and navy. By 2005 they were ready.

Pirapaharan’s skills as a tactician were on par with those of Lord Cardigan, notorious for ordering the suicidal charge of the Light Brigade in the Crimean war. Why else would he and the LTTE have forced the Tamils in the North and many in the east not to vote, thus allowing Rajapaksa to defeat Wickramasinghe by a whisker during the 2005 election? After 25 years of war only a sliver of country was in Pirapaharan’s hands. The Lankan military had surrounded his fiefdom by air, sea and land. He would have lost a lot of his equipment because of the tsunami; compounding this, the eastern forces of the LTTE under Karuna had defected.

For all Jayatilleka’s claims of Lanka being in the anti-imperialist camp and of diplomats like him being active ‘norm entrepreneurs,’ their victory depended on the logistic support provided by the ‘imperialist’ camp. The Americans provided a radar-based maritime surveillance system, electronic surveillance and military intelligence. The radar system was crucial in intercepting and sinking ships that carried military cargo for the LTTE.[10] Israel provided war planes and patrol boats.[11] India and China provided military hardware. Billions of dollars of aid were provided to the Lankan military.

Evidence of this comes from straight from Dr Jayatilleka’s mouth. The good doctor, a diplomat and public intellectual, is also (according to him) an expert on military history and strategy. He has (he tells us) lectured at every military academy in Lanka, and tells us that he was in the belly of the empire at the Special Warfare Centre at Fort Bragg, where for several years running he was a lecturer in the joint training programmes of the US and Sri Lankan Special Forces.

“I have some cherished mementoes and insignias presented on every occasion. Perhaps you should tell it to those of the SAIC in Washington DC where I was one of the 2 invited panellists with one other being a member of the US Joint chiefs of staff, at a session on the evolving strategic landscape of central and south Asia.” (Groundviews, January 28, 2009)[12]

A man truly for all political seasons!

The LTTE’s financial and logistical support was being cut off and it was at this point that Pirapaharan and his advisers decided to fight a conventional war. There was only one possible outcome; it just took a little longer than it should have. It is in this context one should see the decisions made by Rajapaksa.

I have already dealt with the issue of human rights violations committed by both parties to the conflict in my earlier article. Taking 1971, 1977, 1983, 1987-89 and the thirty year civil war, the total is hundreds of thousands of deaths. Recognition of this and reconciliation are priorities. Ignoring this retards the progress of democracy and the economic development of the country (Groundviews, January 16, 2011). At the moment that is not happening, and if long-term strategies are not implemented a situation similar to the Palestinian conflict is likely to result: the permanent presence of troops and sporadic outbreaks of worsening violence (Lewis,. 665).

Dr Jayatilleka refers to my apparent failure to appreciate the fact that world’s “radical” regimes (Cuba, Vietnam, Brazil, China) supported the Lankan state in the war against the LTTE. He concludes, witheringly: “Debating Marxism with such a man is a waste of time”. (Groundviews, January 16, 2011)

The answer, alas, is economic. The reality is that there is only one market, meaning a marriage of imperialist and anti-imperialist interests. Emerging superpowers like China and India are trying to secure key resources, putting them in direct competition with established economies. This fact governs the attitude of China (with its soft loans and strategic investments) to Lanka. And China, India and Brazil are implicitly dependent on the West in their attempt to sell vast amounts of consumer goods, services and resources. In addition, they buy Western technology and economic assets.

Lanka was one of the first countries in the world (after Chile) to open its economy to foreign investment and finance. It did this in 1977. It has been a part of the global circuit of capitalism for well over thirty years. Why, otherwise, would the International Monetary Fund agree to a bailout package of $2.6 billion dollars to Lanka two months after the war had been won? The World Bank (a prime prop of imperialism) released its annual funding of $465 million to Lanka in 2011. It would never finance a truly anti-imperialist government like Castro’s Cuba or Chavez’s Venezuela. Titles of countries and the name of political parties in a lot of instances do not reflect a country’s real economic makeup. Lanka’s proper title is: The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, but very clearly its economy is capitalist and its parliamentary system bourgeois.

I have no desire to debate Marxism here, but I say again that the use of left-wing establishment names is inappropriate in a discussion of Rajapaksa’s political programs and ideology. Dr Jayatilleka would do well to remember that his idealisation of his paymaster compromises his ambition to be an independent public commentator and intellectual. His many articles and comments in Groundviews show his position all too clearly: he is visibly damned by his history. It is time to listen to other voices from multi-cultural Lanka. Voices of tolerance and reconciliation: speaking of justice both social and economic. Lankans who express those views should not be subject to intimidation nor branded as traitors to the nation state. It is time these other voices were heard; then a true dialogue might begin. In doing this we can all defend Lanka not the current elite’s version of it.

• A Man for all political Seasons: Dr Dayan Jayatilleka
• Mahinda, Marxism and Michael
• Poll: Prospects for Peace in Sri Lanka in 2007
• Chandrika Kumaratunga responds to Dayan Jayatilleke’s comment on the murder of Lasantha Wickremetunge
• Mahinda Rajapaksa and the Second-Term: A New Beginning?

Photo courtesy JDS

As promised, the Sri Lankan government made the final report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) public last month. It has also recently released its “National Action Plan for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights: 2011-2016.”

The Action Plan was developed in accordance with a commitment the government had made in 2008, the last time Sri Lanka participated in the UN’s Universal Periodic Review.

Both documents are part of the Sri Lankan government’s strategy to placate international observers and convince people that there is no need for any kind of international assistance because the country’s domestic institutions are working just fine. Like the LLRC report, the National Action Plan contains some decent ideas and recommendations, but it is replete with missing and false information. For example, the section on the Prevention of Torture is laughable and worrisome.

The Sri Lankan government claims that it “maintains a zero-tolerance policy on torture.” This sweeping assertion directly contradicts loads of evidence, including the recent findings of the UN’s Committee Against Torture (CAT). The fact that the Ministry of Defense has been denoted as the “Key Responsible Agency” for ensuring the prevention of torture is perhaps more disconcerting.

The front-page story in last week’s Sunday Leader, which explains “that that some 500 people have been reported missing in the North and East alone over the past few years” should give people good reason to worry. The rule of law continues to deteriorate under President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s watch. The government will present its National Action Plan at the UN Human Rights Council’s (HRC) 19th session in March.

What Will Happen in Geneva?

In theory, Rajapaksa’s administration has plenty to worry about. Lobbying and debate surrounding the next session of the HRC has already begun.

Many foreign governments recently made strong statements that the LLRC’s final report does not touch on the question of accountability. The Sri Lankan government refuses to look into credible claims that violations of international humanitarian law occurred at the end of the war; government officials are unwilling to go into any detail about what actually happened during the last phase of the conflict.

Strident calls for an international mechanism will be made this spring in Geneva. If no resolution gets through either of the next two sessions of the HRC (another session will be held this summer), then Rajapaksa’s government can probably rest easy as long as they stay in power.

Diplomacy is not always a zero-sum game, but Rajapaksa’s government knows that the final report of the LLRC and the National Action Plan are its two most potent lobbying weapons, as long as government officials continue to bend the truth or promulgate outright lies.

This is ironic because both documents distort reality and should actually be used against the government. They reinforce the notion that Rajapaksa’s administration does not care about human rights.

The processes surrounding the drafting and the finalization of the LLRC and the National Action Plan were deeply flawed and not at all independent. The LLRC’s lack of independence is well-known. (President Rajapaksa appointed the eight-member Commission himself). The true story about the National Action Plan appears to be less widely understood, especially outside of Sri Lanka.

The government’s drafting of the National Action Plan was quite devious. A number of civil society leaders, academics and genuinely independent thinkers were included in the eight-committee body during the initial process and the composition of the first draft of the National Action Plan. Yet committee members were not involved in the process after that.Now, the Sri Lankan government is falsely claiming that the National Action Plan was the result of a thoughtful, inclusive process. This is absurd. As Rohan Edrisinha (a member of one of the drafting committees) has already indicated, that was not what happened. Drafting committee members never did approve the final document, only the first draft.

In another clever ploy, this “watered down” version is being heralded as a step in the right direction. Few people are speaking out about this issue because they are afraid to do so. Rajapaksa’s government has benefited from a fragmented political opposition for years. Divisions within Sri Lankan civil society only make the government’s consolidation of power that much easier. In addition to some lively debate at the Human Rights Council, Sri Lanka’s human rights record will also be examined under the UN’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) this year. The government’s propaganda machine is already in full swing. Sri Lankan diplomats will welcome many foreign dignitaries in January and February.

President Rajapaksa and senior government officials will use these visits as a platform to prepare a more complete misinformation campaign for Geneva in late February and early March. The Sri Lankan government will be touting both the LLRC and the National Action Plan as wonderful examples of how just and satisfactory things are in Sri Lanka.

The idea is farcical.

In January of 2010, the IMF declared Sri Lanka a Middle Income country. The war has been over for more than two years. International observers and NGOs are moving on to the next crisis: Libya, Egypt, Tunisia or elsewhere. A new disaster or humanitarian catastrophe is always right around the corner. Nonetheless, what happened in Sri Lanka in 2009 cannot be brushed aside. One does not sweep ethnic tension under the rug and wait idly by, hoping that it disappears.

Looking Ahead

Again, in spite of the LLRC’s complete exoneration of the military, the report does contain some good recommendations about devolution, land rights, compensation for victims/survivors and demilitarisation. There are some decent thoughts and recommendations in the National Action Plan as well.

However, the chances that the Sri Lankan government will swiftly move to implement any of the solid recommendations are infinitesimal. Rajapaksa’s government has shown its unwillingness to follow through on almost all the agreements it made during the last session of the Universal Periodic Review in 2008. It disregarded the LLRC’s interim recommendations too. The word “recommendation” in Sri Lankan political parlance is meaningless. Why should anyone be optimistic this time around? Forget recommendations, the government continues to ignore its own constitution.

To take one example, President Rajapaksa’s intractable position on the devolution of power to the country’s Northern and Eastern provinces, something that is clearly articulated in the 13th Amendment of the country’s constitution, is not helping. Nor is the government’s current dialogue with the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), which is starting to look more like a scene from Waiting for Godot and less like any semblance of political negotiation with each passing day.

Why would any rational person take President Rajapaksa’s recent statement about the “full implementation of the 13 Amendment plus” seriously?[1]

Despite some claims to the contrary, Mahinda Rajapaksa is not (yet) Robert Mugabe and Sri Lanka is not Zimbabwe. But this government has undoubtedly become more authoritarian since the end of the war. Just because the country has a history of “democracy” does not mean that continued democratic governance is a foregone conclusion. The erosion of checks and balances since 2009 has been significant. The passage of the 18th Amendment in 2010 reinforced this, as that legislation pulled even more power to the executive.

Some sort of resolution should get through the HRC this year. It might be weak and disappoint many, but it would be better than nothing. If the HRC fails to pass any resolution on Sri Lanka, it would be a humiliating display of fecklessness.

According to the HRC’s website, “The Council was created by the UN General Assembly on 15 March 2006 with the main purpose of addressing situations of human rights violations and make recommendations on them.”[2]

Over the past five years, the HRC has proven that is very capable of making recommendations. It is the first part of the HRC’s mission that the body struggles with. Does the HRC actually address “situations of human rights violations” in a meaningful way?

Inaction on Sri Lanka would be a black mark on an institution that already has a dithering problem. It would be an embarrassment. If the HRC cannot crack down on Sri Lanka, when would it ever act? Should replacing the Commission on Human Rights with the HRC still be viewed as an improvement?

Tyranny and inaction may prevail this year in Geneva. If that were to happen, people will be asking many questions. This would be a good first question: What is the purpose of the Human Rights Council? A good second question would be: Are the proceedings of the Human Rights Council a colossal waste of time and money?

Giving Rajapaksa’s government a free pass on human rights empowers aspiring autocrats everywhere. It sends a clear signal to semi-authoritarian governments: Go ahead, do whatever you want; you will face no consequences for your actions.

###

A version of this article was first published in The Journal of Foreign Relations.

• The LLRC report and ‘accountability’ in Sri Lanka
• Waiting for the end of the LLRC
• THE LLRC AND COMPLAINTS OF DISAPPEARANCES OF PERSONS
• Going beyond the 13th Amendment: Newspaper coverage of the Sri Lankan’s President’s assurance to India
• LLRC REPORT: REASON, REFORM, ROADMAP

Two months ago I sat for my first year final exams at the Open University of Sri Lanka. Last month’s edition of the Hi Magazine showcased 3 pages of clothes from designer K.T Brown – modelled by me. And in December, I will be on Art TV – as a contestant for the Super Model of Asia Pacific 2011. I suffer from no grandiose illusions about myself. I am no super model. I am extremely uncomfortable in front of the camera and at age 26 have only just begun studying for my degree. Yet, every one of these steps is a huge achievement for me, for just over three years ago I was trapped in an abusive marriage. It was a marriage  that wore down every shred of confidence I ever owned – confidence I have struggled to take control of and own ever since.

It has never been easy for me to speak of what took place during those 5 years I was married, I don’t think I ever fully have. I mean to now, because I feel that my story, or some part of it, may resonate with someone out there – someone who may still be ignorant of her rights. It was youthful folly that led me to marry at the age of 18. It was ignorance that held me trapped for five years in marriage to a man who didn’t recognise me as an equal – a man who reflected attitudes and actions no different to many other men here in Sri Lanka. Don’t get me wrong – I am no feminist. I see no reason to burn the bra when all one needs to do is not wear it. I can only attest to what is true for me and to what is my reality.

I was recently at an event at which a Buddhist priest spoke. He told the audience that he ran a pre-school in Kalmunai and how he loved working with children. He mentioned that he was brought up in a Home for destitute children and said that when he saw children ‘ mahath dukak mata athivenava’ (a great sadness comes over me). It is this same ‘mahath duka’ I feel when I see women living lives they should not have to live. Sadness and anger. Anger at a system that makes it so hard for a woman to stand up for her rights, a system that doesn’t protect women, a system that discriminates against a woman and a system that casually accepts as normal all abuse against women.

I know what it is like to be beaten for having an opinion, beaten for answering back, beaten because he didn’t like what you just said, beaten because he was drunk, beaten because you felt you had rights and asked for them, beaten because you had values and you stood up for them, beaten because he felt you didn’t respect him. I have been beaten for less. I know what it is like to be told you don’t amount to anything, that you have nothing, that your parents are nothing, that you came from nowhere and that you will never amount to anything.

I know what it is like to believe these lies.

I know what it is like to stand waiting at a Police Station to make an entry (because my mother had the sense to push me to) and have the police laugh in your direction, look at you sneeringly and make you feel like it is you who is in the wrong. I know what it is like to stand there alone, holding a crying child, scarlet-cheeked and ashamed, like scores of other Sri Lankan women who have undergone a similar fate.  I know what it is like to want to leave an abusive man, but be too afraid to. I know what it’s like to feel like it is your responsibility to stay, for the sake of your child – even if you learn later that he has the bigger responsibility to treat his wife, the mother of his child, right.

I know what it is like to be locked out of the house, in the middle of the night, because he felt he could do that to you and to be crouching in fear and shaking with tears. I know what it is like when all the adults that surround you tell you that time will heal all wounds, or that he will change with time, or that you should be patient, when all you really want is for the abuse to stop. How many other women are in the same predicament today? How many women are being advised to be patient, to ‘bow’ their heads, to stay for the sake of the children? How many are being told to be careful with what they say to their husbands, to refrain from angering him, to pray, to go to church, to write in a diary, to ask forgiveness for sin, to put their lives right in the sight of God, to make pujas? How many women are – in addition to the beating they are getting from their husbands – beating themselves up by taking blame and responsibility for wrongs that are not theirs? How many women carry this guilt with them their entire life? And how many know that they don’t have to?

There is serious dearth of education and mainstream conversation on the topic of violence against women. And we that refuse to speak only contribute to it. Domestic violence is portrayed in images of black and white, in symbols and signage – but why do those of us with a voice not speak? We the middle and upper English speaking classes like to comfort ourselves with the idea that violence against women is a distant reality affecting only the uneducated and poorer classes. However, the harsh truth is that violence against women exists everywhere, in every class and in most homes. Yet many of us hide behind the cloak of shame and refuse to speak.

Young men reading this, ask yourselves if you have not seen your father make your mother cry, or your father hit your mother. Young women, ask yourselves whether, if you do not throw yourselves into a social life that keeps you away from home for as long as possible, you can deal with the way your mother lives or at how abusive the father you love can be to her? Yes, there are exceptions, but I speak not for them or of them, I speak for all those of you in the system – being abused now, today, to all those of you watching someone else being abused now, today. I speak even to men who speak of equality for the sexes and yet shun the idea of counselling, couple therapy, anger management and a host of other tools that can be used to create an equal platform that can be the foundation for the relationship you share with you partner. I speak to you – should you too not speak up? Should not this kind of behaviour and attitudes be labelled with a clear NO?

How many mothers stay in unhappy marriages for the sakes of their children and bring up children that can’t discern between the right and the wrong they see happening in their homes? How many women tell their sons that they must treat women right and then allow their husbands to walk all over them? Unless there is some bravery, some balls on the side of the women themselves, this cycle of abuse will continue. Sons will grow up to mistreat their women (whatever their true intentions may be) and daughters will grow up vowing never to marry. Marriages will fail and children (like mine) will have broken homes. But the question worth asking is – how much less broken is a home with an abusive father to a home in which there is no father at all? Not much less.

I am only coming out with parts of my story because I am today, older, wiser, stronger. But there must be more conversation, more acceptance, more support much less tolerance for domestic violence. Sri Lanka has a long way to go. The system of justice is marked with delays, administrative failures, bribery and corruption. It has been three years since my marriage ended and I am yet to get the justice I seek. The legal system needs to strengthen and we need lawyers with integrity – lawyers that will demand an end to the bribery and corruption that goes on within the courts. We need counsellors that will counsel with a conscience, we need women to understand that an education can get them a job that can give them financial independence. We need trustworthy childcare systems and a trustworthy police force. Yes, we are a long way away from it all.

But today, I spoke up. And tomorrow I hope you will. And maybe the day after tomorrow more people will speak up and in the next generation our children will benefit from it.

Being a young single mother in this country hasn’t been easy. I feel judged all the time! Not having a man ensures that I am an easy target to three-wheel drivers, baas’s, unscrupulous tuition teachers, dirty policemen, harsh neighbours, school principals – the whole lot. I have come to realise that the hardest thing a single woman or a single mother faces is social stigmatisation.

And yet, when I wake up in the morning and I know the day is my own, that the goals I have set are my own, that all achievements are my own, that the decisions I make are my own, and that my son is my own, I am happy.

###

This is an edited version of an essay that first appeared in 16 Days Campaign Blog, a platform curated by the Women and Media Collective.

• A-Z of Sri Lankan English: C is for cousin brother
• HEY MAN!
• How hard is it to admit fault, Ambassador Wickramasuriya?
• The untold story of a child
• Hear My VOICE: Thenuja Tharmeshwaran ~ “I am always my father’s favourite”

It looks like the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Committee (LLRC) took their job far more seriously than expected. Some stake holders in the Government who insisted that it is fully worth spending time to bring about reconciliation through the LLRC came out on TV to say that LLRC has over-stepped the bounds of its mandate. For the first time, they articulated to the citizens that the mandate of LLRC was mainly limited to study why the 2001 ceasefire failed, and to find out the parties responsible for the damage caused thereafter. The report also triggered a shower of letters from local patriotic organizations to the president urging him to neglect the recommendations. Facebook and email forums were in full swing exchanging views that ranged from the argument that there is no need for reconciliation at all because the war was with a terrorist organization, to those ridiculing the LLRC report as an eye-wash. However, it is interesting to observe that human rights watchdogs that originally expressed concerns about the limited scope of investigation and jurisdiction of the committee seem to be the group that encourages the Government to implement at least some of the recommendations of the LLRC. Meanwhile the Indian Government re-iterated that the Sri Lankan Government, while taking speedy measures to implement the recommendations of the LLRC could readily implement the 13^th amendment to the constitution with broad power devolution.

Talking to friends of both ethnicities, I wanted to find out views about a frequently surfaced question as to why we need reconciliation when the war was with a terrorist organization. The argument posed by those who ask this question was that discrimination is everywhere. Even Sinhalese in remote areas face the same economic hardships the Tamils face in the North. It is a question of Colombo-centric development model than one of ethnic discrimination. They agree that these economic digital divide is magnified by inefficient and corrupt centralized Government system. However, most of then did not see power devolution like in the 13^th amendment as a solution because it may open the path to separate states especially when there is a separatist movement in place. Their concerns were based on a sense of suspicion and insecurity too. Questions like “what if they become powerful and demand for separation? Can a small country like Sri Lanka afford to fight another war?” were underscored in their concerns. They also argued that the whole notion of North and East being identified as a Tamil region is problematic, citing historical and archeological evidence.

However, others who argued for devolution of power had reasons transcending mere economic disparities between the Western province and the North and East. It was often argued that Sinhalese in the South or even Tamils in the South may choose to live with the status quo. They may choose of live with sustained economic development largely confined to Colombo now seen also in Hambantota mainly due to President Rajapaksa’s personal interest than a National policy of balanced regional development; they may choose to live with the fact that the higher education prospects of their children should be limited to a quota system limited to about 3% of the population no matter how hard they study in the school; they may choose to tolerate deterioration of rule of law and corrupt law enforcement; they may even choose to live with a cultural recognition given predominantly to Sinhala-Buddhists. However, it was questioned if they have the right to impose that choice on others who have stronger aspirations of their own. They argued that broader devolution of power will allow people in the North and the East to come up with drastically different economic, justice, and law enforcement models to stimulate a faster growth with dignity for their cultural identity, wider access to university education, research and innovation, more efficient trans-National trade through better usage of ports like Trincomalee for trade, etc. The differences in identity claims and gulf of aspirations between two groups of people in the small Island of Sri Lanka could be more complex if other layers of the society are also brought within the discussion. People I knew were by far academics and professionals. How about business communities, farmers, laborers, fishermen, etc? I won’t dare to investigate with the limited time I have to do my citizen politics.

It seems to me that a major need of the reconciliation process is to more accurately understand the differences of aspirations between the groups who contributed to the conflict that can not co-exist in a centralized administrative structure. The mere fact that LTTE was a terrorist outfit does not rule out the possibility that Tamils who sympathized LTTE at least in its early stages of development (ex. formation of Ealam Revolutionary Organization of Students (EROS)) do not have reasonable aspirations different from the South that is best realized in a devolved administrative structure. The mere fact that Sinhalese in the South feel insecure about power devolution amidst a separatist movement on the move does not mean that they are not willing to settle for a viable political solution either. It is equally wrong to take only one cross section of the society to arrive at conclusions. For instance, it is wrong to take a Tamil or Sinhalese farmer who spends a simple life-style to argue that there is no gulf of aspirations between people in the North and the South. It maybe also be true that a businessman is only interested in the bottom line (profit or loss figure) than his/her cultural identity, opportunity to obtain a local university education, or to enjoy rule of law. Therefore, it may well be that this whole problem is limited to middle and upper middle class communities. I am not sure if LLRC or other efforts towards reconciliation addressed this dimension of people’s aspirations deeply enough, partly due to their inherent limitations of mandates.

Whatever the factors contributing to any gulf of aspirations may not be static too. Therefore, peace can not be frozen with an accord. It is a more dynamic phenomenon orchestrated by co-existence of continuously changing conflicting human aspirations. What are identified as Tamil aspirations today maybe different in twenty years from now. The Sinhalese who choose to accept Colombo-centric decision making and development may choose another model in twenty years. What is important therefore, is to have an administrative structure that recognizes and facilitates the co-existence of ideologically and culturally different people with well articulated aspirations within the small island of Sri Lanka at any given time. What is dangerous is to be dishonest in the process of reconciling any gulf of aspirations if at all. In this regard, the Government should avoid duplicity of engagement as much as possible. For instance, the Government held secret discussions with the Darusman committee while using its appointment by the UN secretary general to do Nationalistic local politics overlooking the danger that the credibility of LLRC would be eroded as a result. Moreover, the Government could be more sensitive to the sentiments of those who lost their loved ones in the last phase of the war.

Finally, any reconciliation process should address the legitimate concern of those who do not wish to see separation of Sri Lanka into two or more states. Just like gravity keeps locally chaotic water bouncing off rocks in a waterfall, co-existence of conflicting ideologies in any devolved administrative structure should have its own chaotic dynamics within a single national identity which can be more effectively sustained by fostering trade links among regions and by strengthening the notion of citizenship, rule of law, justice, and respect for human rights than by an enforced sense of stability in a centralized regimented system.

• Archive of Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) submissions and media reports
• FEDERALISM AND THE UNP
• A slumbering LLRC: The image of reconciliation in Sri Lanka?
• 13th Amendment: Plus? Or Minus?
• A response to Dayan Jayatilleka’s “Mindless emotionalism and absence of thinking in Tamil politics”

Photograph: Lakruwan Wanniarachchi/AFP/Getty Images from Guardian

The breaking news that JR Jayawardana had won the 1977 general election by a 5/6 majority is one of my vivid childhood memories. Perhaps, the fact that my father was an ardent supporter of the United National Party led by Junius Richard Jayawardana, commonly known as JR, compounded the significance of that memory. JR Jayawardana asked for a mandate to build a just society (“Dharmishta Samajaya” in Sinhalese) and an open economy. There was no TV at that time, but his Green posters on lamp-posts, buses, and walls highlighted this attractive slogan. He passed the 1978 constitution that gave sweeping powers to the executive president to build the so called just society. That included powers to over-rule a decision of the Supreme Court. Then he locked the constitution by changing the electoral system from a winner take all system to a representative system that made it extremely hard to win a 2/3 majority to change the constitution. He started to build the just society by stripping his opposition candidate Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranayake’s civil rights to participate in politics for seven years and by expelling her from the parliament, citing abuse of power during her term. The justice system in the new order did not find anybody guilty of stoning judges, burning the Jaffna library, or for perpetrating crimes in the 1983 riots. Public mistrust and despair grew day by day but the impending catastrophe was invisible in the glare of extreme presidential power. The economic policies in the new order however achieved a growth rate of more than 7.5%. Some were mesmerized by rising buildings in Colombo, new roads, TV, and numerous other fantasies made available in the markets. My next vivid memories are in two bloody armed uprisings – one from the South, and the other from the North – that continued to torture the minds social fabric of Sri Lankans till recently.

As a child, I was keen to read about an ancient Sri Lankan King known as Dutugamunu.  He lead an army to fight with King Elara who ruled the Northern part of Sri Lanka in 161BC. As soon as King Dutugamunu won the battle, he ordered all citizens to respect the tomb of defeated King Elara at all times. That included an order to get down from the horse whenever they passed the tomb. There was no United Nations at that time to impose international ethics of war, but it is said that this voluntary demonstration of nobility won the hearts of both Sinhalese in the South and Tamils in the North to unify Sri Lanka.

Let this be the backdrop to discuss the petition “Urge the release of former commander of the Sri Lankan Army and Presidential candidate General (Ret.) Sarath Fonseka” that has received more than the required 25,000 signatures on “your voice in our Government” section of the official White House web site.

Why should the Obama administration pay close attention to this?

In addition to the above two cases from Sri Lanka, let me remind two exemplary incidents of profound respect for people’s voice behind defeated leaderships found in the US independence struggle and in the civil war.

During the American independence struggle, the battle of Saratoga came to an end with British General John Burgoyne with his survived soldiers surrendering to General Horatio Gates in New York on October 17, 1777. In the surrender ceremony General Burgoyne said “The fortunes of war, General Gates, has made me your prisoner”. In reply, General Gates said “I shall always be ready to testify that it has not been through any fault of your Excellency”. What should be celebrated in this historical negotiation was the maturity of both military leaders to respect the aspirations of people represented by both groups of survivors.

At the end of American civil war (1861 – 1865), General Robert E. Lee surrendered to General Ulysses S. Grant. General Grant paroled General Lee without resorting to the legitimate opportunity to try him for treason. This and the steps taken by President Carter to absolve General Lee of all wrongdoings only helped to forge a better union than permanently sealing hateful sentiments.

During the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr highlighted the danger of unfair laws that some rulers abuse to oppress those who hold opposite views by saying “remember, all what Hitler did was legal”.

Jailed Sri Lankan common opposition presidential candidate Sarath Fonseka obtained 40% of the votes in the 2010 presidential election. President Rajapaksa became the only president after JR Jayawardana to enjoy a 2/3 majority if he ever wished to reverse the anti-democratic elements of the 1978 constitution. To our astonishment, he did the opposite. He abrogated the independent judiciary committees under the 17^th amendment to the constitution, so that he can appoint judges at his discretion. Under these circumstances, everything President Mahinda Rajapakse does against Sarath Fonseka may be legal. However, a cardinal historical lesson being repeatedly highlighted in the above historical examples of dealing with a defeated leader has been neglected in the nature of these legal maneuvers against Sarath Fonseka. Compounding the blow to the sentiments of the people represented by Sarath Fonseka, president Rajapaksa and his media men arrogantly defended the present policy. Daily Mirror reported that “President Mahinda Rajapaksa yesterday said he was ready to consider a pardon for former army commander Sarath Fonseka if his family makes a request to that effect in the proper procedure”. Reports elsewhere suggested that this “proper procedure” involves Sarath Fonseka’s family going to the foot of the president to beg for pardon for some crimes the state accuses him to have done. President Rajapaksa further went on to say that “It is immaterial whether you deliver a petition with millions of signatures to President Barack Obama or adopt any other strategies but the final decision rests with me”. He left out one choice – to come and kneel down in front of him and beg for pardon. What if Sarath Fonseka and the public represented by him believe that he should not surrender to unfair terms?

During president Premadasa era, MP Mahinda Rajapaksa went to Geneva to complain against human rights violations in Sri Lanka. I am sure he did not expect president Premadasa to say “your flight to Geneva is in vain Mahinda. It will be directed back to me, and you know what I will do with it”.

This time people chose to petition the Obama administration. Will he just revert it back to President Rajapaksa as he boasted?

###

The author is a lecturer at King’s College London, and a former Radcliffe fellow at Harvard University.

• Presidential hopefuls and escape-routes for the ‘hopeless’
• Visualising Mahinda Chintanaya 2010: The President’s election manifesto
• Sarath Fonseka and the Role of the Opposition: Will Sanity Prevail?
• Visualising Sarath Fonseka’s key campaign issues and manifesto
• 10 reasons why you should celebrate Mahinda Rajapaksa’s victory

Shortly before their disappearance Mr. Weeraraj and Mr. Muruganandan had been organizing a press conference to be held in Jaffna on 10^th December, international human rights day.  On 10^th December, a group of HRDs from the South who were travelling to Jaffna to attend a peaceful protest to mark human rights day were stopped for several hours by the police and prevented from attending the protest. (Detailed report available at http://groundviews.org/2011/12/14/42-political-activists-and-hrds-detained-and-prevented-from-participating-in-peaceful-protest-in-jaffna-town-on-human-rights-day/)

Background of the Two HRDs

Mr. Lalith Kumar Weeraraj is a political activist and human rights defender who has worked extensively in the North and East of Sri Lanka. He is the Jaffna Coordinator of the Movement for People’s Struggle (MPS) (Jana Aragala Wiyapaaraya) launched by a dissident faction of the Peoples Liberation Front (JVP), a mainstream opposition party in Sri Lanka represented in Parliament. The movement aims at mobilizing people against state repression, human rights violations against the Tamil minority and the problems faced by IDPs in the North. MPS launched their campaign at a meeting at the Hyde Park grounds in Colombo on 13^th December 2011, where they also held a protest calling for the immediate release of the missing activists.

Mr. Weeraraj is also an Executive Committee member of ‘We Are Sri Lankans’ (WESL), a university student based organization aimed promoting and protecting the rights of the Tamil people in order to build national harmony and reconciliation in Sri Lanka. Mr. Weeraraj has campaigned for the release of Tamil political prisoners and detainees and against human rights violations and repression of HRDs and civilians in the North.  He also worked closely with IDPs calling for better infrastructure and livelihood opportunities for resettled or relocated IDPs in the North.

Mr. Weeraraj has worked extensively on the issue of disappearences in the North and East.  He helped set up committees of Families of the Disappeared in the Trincomalee, Mannar, Vavuniya, Killinochchi and Jaffna Districts. He was the main organizer of the protest campaigns with families of the disappeared in Trincomalee, Vavuniya, Killinochchi, Colombo and Jaffna between May and November 2011. The last protest in Jaffna was held on 29^th November 2011. Mr. Weeraraja has recently visited several places of detention including the Bossa Detention Center in the South and the Terrorist Investigation Department (TID) Head Quarters in Colombo, the Welikada Prison in the Colombo district and military camps in search of disappeared persons. Through his efforts he was able to locate two persons who were being held at the Boossa Detention Center and the TID Head Quarters.

Mr. Muruganandan is a close associate of Mr. Weeraraj and has been involved in organizing several protests and campaigns against human rights violations including events with the families of the disappeared.  Mr. Muruganandan assisted Mr. Weeraraj in his work for the Movement for People’s Struggle and the WESL.  He assisted in their work on disappearances and against unlawful detentions and contributed through his own resources and local contacts towards the movements activities in Jaffna. Both men were organizing a press conference on 10^th December 2011 to publicize the protest by the Movement for People’s Struggle in Colombo on 13^th December 2011, when they disappeared.

Previous Threats and Attacks

Mr. Weeraraj has faced repeated threats, intimidation and attacks by the military and police in the North due to his human rights work and campaigns. He has been warned on several occasions to stop doing human rights work in the North, particularly work on enforced disappearences and arbitrary detention, which the military considered to be anti-government or political activities.

On 25^th March 2011, Mr. Weeraraj was putting up posters in Mannar town, calling on the Government to provide information on disappeared persons, when he was abducted by a group of men who claimed to be army officers.  Mr. Weeraraj was blindfolded and held overnight, believed to be in an army barrack. The men threatened Mr. Weeraraj and questioned him about his work. The following morning, Mr. Weeraraj was blindfolded and brought back to Pesalai Junction in Mannar and released. Although he tried to lodge a complaint with the Mannar police regarding the abduction, the police refused to record his complaint on the ground he was unable to identify the persons responsible.

On around 10^th April 2011, Mr. Weeraraj and a friend were arrested by the Vavuniya Police while they were putting up posters in Vavuniya about disappearences in the North. The police tore the posters and threatened to shoot Mr. Weeraraj if he tried to put up posters in Vavuniya again.

On 23^rd June 2011, Mr. Weeraraj had travelled to Killinochchi to organize a protest for WESL when he and a friend were abducted by officers from the Killinochchi (Depo Junction) Army Camp and held in an abandoned ice-cream factory, behind the army camp, and interrogated for around 6 hours before being released. The military forcibly took a photograph of Mr. Weeraraj before releasing him.

On 14^th November 2011, Mr. Weeraraj, along with other activists, was severely beaten by a group of unidentified thugs at a protest with families of the disappeared in Jaffna, opposite the Jaffna town bus stand at around 11.00 am. The attack took place in full view of the police and the army who failed to intervene and stop the violence. Mr. Weeraj and several others ran into the house of former parliamentarian Ms. Padmini Sithambaranadan for their safety.  The gang followed them into the house and locked Mr. Weeraraj in a room and beat him severely. Mr. Weeraja was badly injured in the attack. A complaint regarding the incident was filed with the Jaffna Police Station the same day. However no action has been taken to date.

Disappearance on 9^th December 2011

Mr. Weeraraj travelled to Jaffna on 9^th December to organize a press conference for the MPS in Jaffna the following day (international human rights day).  Mr. Weeraraja and Mr. Muruganandan were last seen by relatives, leaving Mr. Muruganandan’s house at Avarangal Jaffna on Mr. Muruganandan’ motorbike (license no NP GT 7852) at around 5.00pm (Sri Lankan time) on 9^th December. Both men have been missing since then and there is no information regarding their fate or whereabouts to date.

At around 11.00 pm on 9^th December, Mr. Weeraraj’s father received a number of threatening phone calls on his mobile phone (no.+94711879124).  The callers threatened to kill Mr. Weeraraja and warned that “either you remove your son from Jaffna or we will do it for you”. Mr. Weeraraj’s father filed a complaint regarding the threatening calls with the Kosgama Police Station (Colombo District) on 11^th December 2011 (CIB 94/133).

Complaints/Action by Family and Civil Society Groups

Mr. Kugan Muruganadan’s family filed a complaint with the Achchuweli Police Station (Jaffna District) on 10^th December 2011. They were not given a complaint number by the police. Mr. Weeraraj’s father filed a complaint with the Kosgama police station (Colombo District) regarding the disappearance on 11^th December 2011 which was recorded under Complaint no: CIB 94/133.  Mr. Weeraraj’s father also filed a complaint with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) regarding the disappearance on 13^th December 2011, recorded under Complaint no: LKC/432333.

Parliamentarian Mr Ajith Kumara submitted a written complaint regarding the disappearance to the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, Mr. Gotabhaya Rajapaksa on 10^th December 2011.  Mr. Ajith Kumara also filed a complaint about the disappearance with the Jaffna police station on 10^th December, recorded under Complaint no: CIB 232/79.

A complaint was filed with the National Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (NHRC) regarding the missing activists, by Mr. Ajith Kumara on 13^th December (Complaint no: HRC/ 33852/ 2011). A further complaint was filed by Mr. Weeraraj’s father to the NHRC on 16^th December 2011 (Complaint no: H.R.C.3934/11)

Local and international organizations including Amnesty International (http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA37/018/2011/en/523cd9d9-a12b-4013-a31a-5e368272d22e/asa370182011en.pdf), the Asian Human Rights Commission , http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-STM-200-2011, the Sri Lanka Human Rights Centre and the Campaign for Free and Fair Elections (CAFFE), and the International network of Sri Lankan Diaspora http://www.srilankandiaspora.com/blog/?p=2138, have expressed shock and concern regarding the disappearences and concern over the safety of the two missing activists.

State Response

The Jaffna police told Mr. Ajith Kumara MP, on 10^th December 2011, that that the two individuals were not in their custody.  However no action appears to have been taken to date to investigate their disappearance.  On 14^th December, Mr. Ajith Kumara made a statement in parliament about the disappearance of the two activists.

On 15th December, Cabinet Spokesperson, Minister Keheliya Rambukwella told the media at a Cabinet briefing that ‘Mr. Weeraraj and Mr. Muruganandan have not been disappeared, they are there’. He also said that the two activists had not been detained unlawfully and if they were being held by the police or military they would be produced before a Magistrate and dealt with according to the law. This news item was carried on Sirasa TV News on 15^th December at 7pm; http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2011/12/18/parent-seeks-hrc-intervention-to-find-whereabouts/; http://soundcloud.com/lanka-views/keheliya).

On 14^th December, Mr. Muruganandans wife found the motorbike license no NP GT7852, in which Mr. Muruganandan and Mr. Weeraraj were last seen, parked inside the Atchchuveli Police Station. Mr. Muruganadan’s wife had visited the police station to collect a copy of her complaint regarding the disappearance.  When she inquired about the motorbike, the police told her that the bike had been found by the Kopai Police on 13^th December, parked near a Hindu temple in Kopai.

Appeal

The families of both Mr. Weeraraj and Mr. Muruganandan and WESL and PSM, believe that the Sri Lanka Army is responsible for the disappearance. The Government has so far failed to provide them with any clear information regarding the two missing men and their whereabouts. The family has heard through unofficial sources that Mr. Weeraraj and Mr. Muruganandan are being held at an unidentified detention center in the Jaffna district but there has been no official confirmation of this fact.

Following the statement by Minister Keheliya Rambukwella to the media, that the two activists ‘have not been disappeared, they are there’, their family and colleagues believe that the two activists are currently in Government custody and home that they will be produced before a Magistrate. They call on the Government to provide credible information regarding the whereabouts of Mr. Weeraraj and Mr. Murugan and to treat them according to the law.

• 42 Political Activists and HRDs Detained and Prevented from Participating in Peaceful Protest in Jaffna Town on Human Rights Day
• Disappearance
• Youth activists on human rights in Sri Lanka
• Still waiting for justice in Sri Lanka
• 119, Buddhism and being Sinhalese

This is the second major protest organized in Jaffna in recent years following the protest organized by the Free Media Movement against the attack on Uthayan News Editor G. Kuganathan in August 2011. This protest was also held amid tight security controls and the police attempted to disrupt the protest.

The protest on December 10^th 2011 was organized by a collective of civil society groups and activists including Right to Life, International Movement against Discrimination and Racism (IMADR), Committee to Investigate Disappearances (CID), families of the disappeared and political parties including the Tamil National Alliance, Nava Sama Samaja Party (NSSP), the Socialist Party, and Communist Party of Sri Lanka (Maoist) to highlight key human rights issues and ongoing violations particularly in the North of Sri Lanka.

42 political activists and HRDs from the South, including NSSP party members, members of the Committee to Investigate Disappearences (CID), political activists from the Communist Party (Maoist), Socialist Party and journalists and members of the fisherman’s association travelled to Jaffna in a bus from Colombo and other parts of the country to join the protest.

Mr. Sivajilingam a former Member of Parliament representing the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) which won about 2/3rd of the vote from the North and East during the local authority elections in March 2011, said that on the day of the protest there was unusually heavy security and military presence in Jaffna town. He explained that all buses entering Jaffna town were being checked by police, riot police were seen on the streets and army officers were seen inside the Jaffna police station. For around a week before the protest, several local newspapers in Jaffna including Uthayan and Thinakural publicized the protest organized by leading civil society groups and political parties to mark human rights day in Jaffna.

Bus carrying HRDs Stopped at Navathkuli

At around 9.00 am the bus carrying the HRDs was stopped at a police sentry point in Navathkuli, an entry point to Jaffna Town, around 8 km South of Jaffna on the A9 road.

A policeman entered the bus and seized a copy of Puthiya Samathanamam, a Tamil newspaper published by the NSSP.   Although none of the police officers at the sentry point spoke Tamil and appeared not to be able to read Tamil, they claimed that the newspaper was illegal and contained anti-government material. NSSP members explained that the newspaper was a registered legal publication that had been published since 1996. Following a brief argument the police purchased a copy of the paper and allowed the bus to proceed at around 9.45 am. Mr. Janagan, treasurer of the CID and editor of Puthiya Samathanamam, believes that the police may have informed the authorities in Jaffna that the group was travelling to Jaffna.

HRDs Detained at Vembaddi Junction

The group reached Jaffna and after a brief rest proceeded to the Central Bus Stand where the main protest had been organized. At around 10.30 am the group was stopped by around 20 police officers led by a Sub Inspector at the Vembaddi Junction opposite the Nurses Training College (NTC) in Jaffna town.

Mr. Sundram Mahendran, Secretary of CID, states that the police ordered the group to get down from the bus and searched them. The police searched the bus and confiscated material worth around Rs.30000 including; 99 copies of Puthiya Samathanamam, around 500-600 leaflets calling for investigations into disappearences, several placards and posters including photographs of disappeared persons, and two banners of the NSSP and  the CID. The materials were thrown out of the bus and later loaded into a police vehicle. No receipt was given for the material confiscated by the police.

The group was detained on the road opposite the NTC and surrounded by around 15 policemen. Later around 10 armed army officers joined the police cordon. No one was allowed to leave the place and the police refused to allow anyone to attend the protest despite pleas from leaders of the group and an appeal by TNA parliamentarian Mr. Mavai Senthathirajah, who arrived at the scene shortly after.

No reason or justification was given for this treatment. The police told the group that a protest could not take place in Jaffna without prior police permission. Members of the group argued that no police permission was required for a peaceful protest which did not harm or disturb the public.  The police also said that any gathering of more than five people could not be held without police permission and that any member of the group who tried to leave the place they were being detained, would be remanded.

The group of HRDs was held on the road for over 2 ½ hours until they were released at 12.45 pm. They tied handkerchiefs over their mouths and sat on the road in protest against their unfair treatment. According to Mr. Ranath Kumarasinghe, politburo member of the NSSP, the main purpose of their detention was to prevent the HRDs from joining the protest at any cost.

The SI and an Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) who was present at the scene, accused the HRDs of trying to provoke ethnic tensions and undoing what the military had achieved after years of struggle against terrorism. He said that they would be answerable to the nation for their actions.

Attack on Women Protesters

Despite the police cordon, Mr. Janagan, Mr. Mahendran and Mr. Ranath Kumarasinghe were able to escape the police and joined the protest at the central bus stand.

When Mr. Mahendran reached the protest venue he saw that there was a scene of unrest and arguments between the protesters and the police who were trying to disperse the protest. He was told that several activists were forced to leave the venue by the police who threatened to hit those who remained. Mr. Mahendran and Mr. Janagan joined the protest and informed those present that the group of HRDs and activists from the South had been detained by the police at the Vembaddi Junction. They suggested that the protest be shifted to where the group was being held.

As Mr. Mahendran, Mr. Sivajilingam and former TNA MP Mr. S. Gajendran attempted to lead the group of protesters towards Vembaddi Junction, the police the group comprised mainly of mothers and families of the disappeared. Mr. Mahendran saw the police hit and push some women to the ground. The police formed a cordon around the women and prevented them from leaving the area. Following this, Mr. Mahendran and the TNA leaders were forced to return to the protest at the central bus stand. Mr. Janagan went back to where the HRDs were being held at Vembaddi Junction.

The protest at the central bus stand continued, despite police controls and attempts to disperse or disrupt the protest. TNA MPs Appapillai Vinayakamoorthi, Mavai Senthathirajah and former MP S. Gajendran and Mr. Sivajilingam and several HRDS and groups from the North including mothers and families of the disappeared attended the protest. They were crowded into a small space of around 20 yards by police who prevented the protest from expanding. They were determined to continue the protest until the HRDs were released and threatened to sleep on the road  in protest if the HRDs were not released immediately.

Altercation with the Police

At the protest, Mr. Ranath Kumarasinghe and Mr. Sivajilingam informed the Head Quarters Inspector (HQI) of the Jaffna Police that a group of HRDs were being detained and prevented from attending the protest. The HQI asked for their identity cards and Mr. Kumarasinghe produced his media ID card.  The HQI flung the card in his face. When Mr. Sivajilingam protested against his treatment of a senior journalist, the HQI scolded Mr. Sivajilingam and told him not to get involved in matters that don’t concern him. Following a heated argument with Mr. Sivajilingam the HQI later spoke to Mr. Kumarasinghe and promised to release the group. The HQI ordered a police sergeant to call the SI at the Vembaddi junction and ordered him to release the group of HRDs and allow them to join the protest in pairs.

Following this, Mr. Kumarasinghe was surrounded by media persons who wanted information on the incident. While Mr. Kumarasinshe was talking to the media, the HQI rushed up to him and shouted at him for talking to the press. He pushed Mr. Kumarasinghe and ordered him to leave the protest.

Mr. Kumarasinshe returned to Vembaddi Junction expecting the group to be released based on the HQI’s orders. However, the SI refused to release the group and claimed that he had not received any such orders. Although Mr. Kumarasinghe insisted that the HQI had given orders for the group to be released and that he had seen the sergeant making the call to the SI, the police refused to release the group.

Since the SI refused to release the group Mr. Kumarasinghe returned to the protest at the central bus stand in order to speak with the HQI. There was increased police presence the protest by this point  and he was not permitted to rejoin the  protest. Mr. Kumarasinghe  noticed that there were a larger number of Tamil policemen present by this time. By the time he reached the protest he was told that the HQI had gone to Vembaddi Junction and that the HRDs would be released shortly.

HRDs Released

The HRDs were released at around 12.45 pm by the HQI and allowed to join the protest in pairs. As they were leaving Vembaddi Junction, Mr. Gunasena Wijesinghe President of the CID, heard the  ASP say in Sinhala that ‘Vawulage gedera avanang, elila inna onne’  meaning that when you come to our area you must behave in a manner that is suitable to us. He also told the group that ‘this is not Colombo, this is Jaffna’.

The HRDs joined the protest at around 1 pm and continued the protest for around 45 minutes.  Following the protest they held a short meeting to discuss the incident and left Jaffna at around 2.30 pm and returned to Colombo the same night.

Shortly before they left Jaffna, Mr. Mahendran spoke to an Inspector of Police who was at the bus stand and asked him whether they could recover the materials that had been confiscated by the police in the morning. The Inspector scolded Mr. Mahendran and told him that they should consider themselves fortunate that had not been killed and asked him to get out of that place.

Complaints/Campaigns

On 12^th December 2011, civil society groups organized a protest in Colombo against the illegal detention and harassment and intimidation of the HRDs and political activists by police in Jaffna.

On 13^th December 2011, Mr. Mahindran from the CID, Mr. Ajith Rupesignhe from the Communist Party (Maoist), Mr. Mahinda Devage from the Socialist Party and Janaka Silva, Mr. Janagan and Perumal Koominathanan from the NSSP filed a complaint with the Inspector General of Police against the treatment by the police and asked the IGP to conduct an inquiry into the incident and to return the confiscated materials, particularly the photographs of disappeared persons to the group. The Officer in Charge of the Special Investigation Unit recorded the complaint told the group that he had informed the IGP by telephone and obtained a special order from the IGP to the area Deputy Inspector General of Police to inquiry into the incident.  The same group also plan to complaint to the National Human Rights Commission regarding the incident on 17^th December 2011.

• DISAPPEARANCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS & POLITICAL ACTIVISTS LALITH KUMAR WEERARAJ AND KUGAN MURUGAN ON 9TH DECEMBER 2011
• The protest by Wimal Weerawansa against the UN in Sri Lanka: Condoned by government?
• Sri Lankan Women Human Rights Defenders: Linking Past and Present Challenges
• The Jaffna priest and the policeman who turned IGP
• Like Slaves In Jaffna

In Memoriam: Charles Nigel De Silva

Prior to Nigel’s passing everytime I heard a song by ABBA I angrily turned it off, Nigel loved ABBA – if he wasnt singing or dancing along he was playing it at full volume. After Nigel passed, everytime I hear a song by ABBA I crank up the volume and sing with as much gusto as I can muster. This is how I remember him.

Charles Nigel De Silva’s life was prematurely ended a year ago at the age of 40. He was a proud Josephian with more extra curricular activities than academic achievements. After leaving school he travelled the world on a cruiseliner working as a chef. He was young, vibrant and living out every opportunity he had. A horrific experience, better left  unsaid, resulted in Nigel later testing as HIV positive around 1998. His life then began to change at a frantic pace. He lost his job, family ties, emotional support and even the roof over his head. There was a time he lived on the streets, passing one day at a time, in absolute despair.

Nigel began effecting change when he began positive speaking. His personal story, brutal honestly and infectious personality were a cool recipe for effective communication to audiences that I have seen rapt with attention, often with tears rolling down their faces promising Nigel they would carry his story forward. He soon began to work solely on HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention programmes for various organisations and became a well-respected and trusted colleague within the movement.  He became an asset, a confidante, a much needed out-spoken voice that represented the Sri Lankan Gay HIV positive man.

I met Nigel when all this experience was behind him.  He had found a small place to live and had begun working with EQUAL GROUND, leading their HIV/AIDS prevention programmes targeted at the queer community in Sri Lanka. He was wildly passionate about his work and was instrumental in setting up the foundations of many of the organisation’s active programmes today. His brainchild the counselling helpline is to date the only exclusively queer helpline operated in Sri Lanka by operators who are specifically equipped to deal with issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity. Nigel spent much of his time training the counsellors, recruiting them and teaching everyone in painstaking detail just how important a gesture of support to those confused about their sexuality really is.

Nigel signed his emails off ”yours positively” and chuckled away at those who didnt understand why, and went so far as to celebrate, each year, the day he found out he was positive. He said there is no other way to look at it except from a positive angle. He chose to do this mostly I feel to set an example to the PLHIV and HIV movement that at the time he felt engaged in too much guilt and pity. He rejected pity and demanded compassion, understanding and REAL care and support.

At the same time, Nigel was accutely aware of death. He didnt fear death itself but rather the uphill battle he would face. Sometimes I smile at how cheekily he escaped what I feel he feared the most – dying of AIDS.  Nigel lived his life without medication, no exercise, excessive amounts of Pall Mall cigarettes, and a healthy diet of spice and more spice. He didn’t eat any fruit. He maintained what his doctors called ‘healthy’ relative to his HIV status. He visited the clinic on a monthly basis and always came back smiling with his rations that he promtly distributed to those around him and in need. He was a living example of how HIV was no longer a death sentence. Nigel sometimes spoke of young men like himself that he had buried – he bathed and fed these young men and wept like a father when he buried them. He did this in dignified silence. A dignified silence many did not afford him when he passed, albeit not of HIV or AIDS.

There is enough discourse these days about ‘champions’, ‘leaders’, ‘heroes’ and ‘role models’. Nigel was perhaps more than any of these words can describe. But what i remember and admire about him the most is his spirit of resilience. He had more reasons than all of us to be an angry, deperate, ugly and broken person. He chose not to. He used every negative energy thrown at him as a bouncing board for something inately good. Each one with more finesse than the next. His open heart guaranteed this.

It is often easy to remember Nigey. Most remember him for his work within the HIV/AIDS movement, the positive speaking he did or because they had seen him perform and just had to know if it was a man or a woman. What I remember is that he smelled like eau de cologne in the mornings, he wanted everyone to have a good morning when he greeted them, he said bless you everytime I sneezed. He gave massages if you looked tired, he told the most horrifying ghost stories, he reprimanded wasting food, he listened to aretha franklin, latin love songs and ABBA on loop. He was probably the only activist that hated the word ‘empower’. He was forgiving, and he loved unconditionally. He spoke in a cacophony of sinhala and english, always gesticulating wildly – even the most morose of people had no choice but to warm upto him. He took audible breaths in between ill-timed jokes, each one dripping with more vulgarity than the next. He was gifted in almost every creative aspect, constantly morphing from activist, counsellor, drag queen, artist, positive speaker, flamboyant gay man, doctor and chef! This was the very essence of Nigey, he was no jack of all trades but a true queen of all of our hearts.

I have a foolish fear that he will be forgotten, that his life and premature death had no significance. The two short years I knew Nigel were wrapped up in so much love, laughter and unique friendship that he is impossible to forget. Nigey undoubtedly touched the hearts and minds of many of us, and I believe that people of such resilience are few and far between.  If ever in your lifetime you have the opportunity to be around someone like Nigey you are lucky to learn from them as I have, to realise that we are capable of – insurmountable strength and love.

Nigey I hope you are boogying in heaven in the most garrish pair of platforms, the most lavish pair of wings, dancing to ABBA, and painting rainbows where we never thought we would see them. 

• The Media and the Future of Sri Lanka: Young Canadians’ Peace Dialogue on Sri Lanka
• World AIDS Day is passed. Let’s begin forgetting again.
• Living with HIV in Sri Lanka: Reflections from ICAAP10 in Busan, Korea
• Interview with Vajira, Sri Lanka’s Prima Ballerina Assoluta
• Until the Guns are silent

Photo by Eranga Jayawardena

As another year begins to draw to a close on post-war Sri Lanka, we can take stock of which changes, or the lack of change, we see around us. The full scope of human rights are still not available to civilians living in areas formerly controlled by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which are now tightly controlled by the Sri Lankan armed forces, with strong restrictions prevailing on their right to move freely and their right to assemble, amongst other fundamental rights.

Pressing issues such as hundreds of unsolved cases of disappearances, and the rights of detainees and ex-detainees – particularly those of former LTTE cadres – remain unresolved since 2009, which marked ‘the end’ of the civil war in Sri Lanka.

The cost of living has nearly crippled much of the population, and yet, highways, new roads, and bridges are blossoming all over the island with unprecedented speed and efficiency.

Sri Lanka remains teetering on the edge of change and transition – and yet it does not seem to be going over the edge in a hurry.

Instead, a slow transformation that is difficult to identify, understand and categorise, seems to be taking place before our eyes. It is in this context that the International Day on Women Human Rights Defenders dawns on Sri Lanka, and the world, on the 29^th of November 2011.

Challenges faced by Women Human Rights Defenders

Within almost any socio-political context, Women Human Rights Defenders (Women HRDs) face challenges that are unique to them by default – simply by virtue of being women. Society and social structures, particularly law enforcement, continue to be patriarchal leaving women vulnerable to discrimination and violence on a daily basis.

Not only do these structures actively violate the human rights of women, it leaves women powerless in the aftermath; it leaves them with little power to legally reclaim or fight for their rights.

It is in this context that Women HRDs face a set of tough and distinct challenges – they operate to protect human rights and fight against the violation of human rights in a world where they themselves face discrimination and are often not seen as voices significant enough to be contended with.

An international conference for Women Human Rights Defenders held in Colombo in 2005 identified four major sources of abuse that Women HRDs face around the world: State-based violence and issues of accountability and justice, the growing rise in fundamentalist movements seeking and gaining political power, the use of sexuality-based attacks to intimidate women and harm their bodies and reputations; and the need to address abuse perpetrated by communities and families.

Additionally, women that work as human rights campaigners or activists have the inherent dilemma of balance. Particularly in cultures and societies like that of Sri Lanka, there are social obligations and roles that women are expected to fill as mothers as wives and as daughters. Women who choose to work in the field of human rights are not always understood by their families and loved ones; their profession is not always accepted. Many Women HRDs find themselves facing the tough challenge of balancing their homes and personal relationships with their work.

Women HRDs almost anywhere will doubtlessly admit to the pressure and guilt at seeming unable to give priority to their homes, children, and personal lives in the face of the nature of human rights work. As Aida Edemariam asks in an interview with Gillian Slovo, the daughter of Ruth First and Joe Slovo – both leading figures in the anti-apartheid struggle – ‘What is the cost of trying to change the world, and who exactly pays it?’

Whilst Women HRDs face these issues almost everywhere in the world, they occupy a very special and useful position, as women, and play an important role in the larger picture of defending human rights. As women, they are primarily important in standing for the rights of women in a context where women are still particularly vulnerable to the effects of war, political persecution, and the ongoing issues of gender-based violence and discrimination.

A brief history of Women Human Rights Defenders and their movement in Sri Lanka

Historically, the movement of women HRDs in Sri Lanka has always been closely linked with three key avenues: Sri Lanka’s Free Trade Zone and related issues, the war and the impact it has had on women, and an ongoing campaign to end violence against women.

Several historic protests and strikes demanding the rights of workers in factories of Sri Lanka’s Free Trade Zone have been crucial to the development of the human rights movement in Sri Lanka. Through much of it women have been at the forefront of these strikes. The Polytech Factory Strike of 1983, during which several women (acting both as key organisers and protestors) were arrested in an attempt to quell the protest, is even today seen as a landmark moment in the history of this movement. More recently, 21 year old Roshen Shanaka was killed due to injuries sustained during a protest in the Free Trade Zone, inflicted on him by police. Several large protests took place – with Women HRDs once again at the forefront – to demand justice in the face of this atrocity.

Through the late 80s and early 90s, a movement to end violence against women and to promote awareness of women’s rights gathered momentum and began to assert itself with a sense of urgency. These campaigns, spearheaded by women across political and social groups, began to shape the larger movement to protect women’s rights, and to promote the notion that ‘women’s rights are human rights’.

In 1994, Radhika Coomaraswamy – a Sri Lankan lawyer, academic and activist – was appointed as the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women for the United Nations. This was seen as a turning point for the women’s rights movement and the movement of Women HRDs in Sri Lanka, which gained confidence in continuing to strengthen their campaigns.

The Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing in 1995, saw the active participation of many Sri Lankan women from several human rights and women’s rights organisations representing diverse issues and communities.

Subsequently, this newly invigorated campaign to end violence against women followed an interesting trajectory in the years to come, and culminated in the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act in 2005.

However, in the 90s, the key issue that overcomes the movement of Women HRDs is the issue of war and women affected by war. Naturally, the tense political climate that prevailed at this time as a result of the conflict ensured that the job of Human Rights Defenders became much more dangerous.

Rajini Thiranagama, a young Tamil Woman HRD, lecturer at the University of Jaffna, and activist and writer, was shot dead outside her home in Jaffna. Her family and those close to her suspect the LTTE, whose brutal strategies she had openly criticised and worked against, primarily through the actions of University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna) of which she was a founder member. This brutal killing was met with outrage by human rights defenders everywhere – particularly women HRDs in Sri Lanka.

The fact that women are particularly vulnerable to a host of atrocities in times of war is undeniable. Women, particularly Tamil civilians in the North, are increasingly vulnerable to sexual violence, sometimes perpetrated by State actors including the military, and State supported paramilitary groups, leaving women powerless to complain.

Women become vulnerable as mothers and wives, as their sons or husbands are abducted, disappeared or killed as a result of the ongoing conflict. In the South, a Marxist uprising spearheaded by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) was brutally crushed by the government – and the cruel phenomenon of abductions and disappearances became the infamous trait that characterised this struggle.

The mothers and wives of the disappeared from both the North and South emerged as a huge factor influencing the movement of Women HRDs as they stepped forth to demand justice.

The year after Thiranagama’s death, Richard de Zoysa, a Colombo-based journalist, activist and writer, was abducted from his home and killed. There are clear indications that his abduction and murder was State-sanctioned. His mother, Dr. Manorani Saravanamuttu is the founder of The Mother’s Front, one of three organisations founded at this time by women, which even today continue to landmark the story of the movement of Women HRDs. The other organizations are The Organisation of Parents and Family Members of The Disappeared, in which several mothers and wives of the disappeared were involved at a high level and the Association of War-Affected Women, founded by Visaka Dharmadasa – whose son was declared Missing in Action as a soldier of the Sri Lankan Army.

At present, Sri Lanka seems to have come full-circle – as today, in post-war Sri Lanka, the families of the disappeared, particularly women, are becoming an increasingly strong voice in the campaign for justice and rights.

What are the challenges that Women Human Rights Defenders face in post-war Sri Lanka?

Sandhya Eknaligoda, the wife of journalist and cartoonist Prageeth Eknaligoda who disappeared in January 2010, personifies the struggle of Woman HRDs in Sri Lanka today.

Whilst she is at the forefront of an ongoing public campaign that demands justice in Prageeth’s case, she is also the mother of two teenage boys. She juggles her personal life and her fight for justice, along with the pressures of being a public figure in a now public and therefore risky campaign.

Similarly, hundreds of women in the North and North East – particularly from Mullaitivu, Jaffna and Mannar districts, are stepping forward to demand justice for the disappearances and killings they have witnessed in the North.

Sri Lankan Women HRDs today are forced to work in a political climate in which democracy and law and order are quickly deteriorating, in an atmosphere of impunity and a culture that continues to regard women as inferior and inconsequential. With little power to shield themselves against sexual harassment, domestic violence and gender-based discrimination, women continue to fight an age-old battle. Furthermore, a culture of moralistic repression continues to blossom and flourish in Sri Lanka.

In 2005, Colombo played host to a historic gathering of Women HRDs from across the world – organised by the International Coordinating Committee of “Defending Women Defending Rights: the International Campaign on Women Human Rights Defenders” (ICWHRD). At a closing public session of the conference, Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International said, “All of us – women and men – must demand the protection of those who defend women’s rights and women who defend all human rights, insist on justice when they’re attacked, and fight for them to be given the recognition they are due.”

Today, in 2011, it is interesting to note that a country that had the privilege of hosting more than a hundred of the world’s leading women activists and HRDs continues to be a battleground for its own Women Human Rights Defenders.

The writer is a Consultant for the Human Rights in Conflict Programme at the Law and Society Trust.

• DISAPPEARANCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS & POLITICAL ACTIVISTS LALITH KUMAR WEERARAJ AND KUGAN MURUGAN ON 9TH DECEMBER 2011
• 42 Political Activists and HRDs Detained and Prevented from Participating in Peaceful Protest in Jaffna Town on Human Rights Day
• Women on Top: Sexuality and rights in Sri Lanka
• A Romance with Rights
• HAS MAHINDA RAJAPAKSA BEEN A TRAITOR TO SRI LANKA?

30 months after the end of war, more people travel between the once off limits North[i] and the South and many of the travel restrictions have been eased. The dreaded Medawachiya checkpoint is no more, and since 2010, we have not taken a flight or ship to Jaffna, travelling by road instead. Displaced people who were detained for about 6 months have now been allowed freedom of movement and many have been allowed to go back to their places of origin. Many youth detained in “rehabilitation” centres have been released and allowed to go back to their families and communities. Death certificates have been issued to few of the people killed during the war. Few schools, hospitals, and some main roads and bridges have been built and glamorous ceremonies held to open these by government and military officials. Three major elections have also been held in the North.

But much remains to be done for Northern Tamils to be able to live in dignity and for the country to move towards reconciliation.

In the last few months, we had spent a considerable amount of time traversing the major towns and roads as well as remote and interior villages and roads in Northern Sri Lanka. We had managed to reach some interior villages after questioning by suspicious and curious soldiers. We had survived without running water, electricity, beds, long nights battling mosquitoes, long bumpy rides in dusty buses on roads that felt more like tracks in a wild life parks and numerous other challenges.  But the difficulties we encountered pale in comparison to the difficulties people we encountered were facing and often we felt helpless and powerless to help them.

Below are some of concerns regarding the situation in the North and prospects for reconciliation, based on what we saw and heard first hand, complimented by some additional desk research for information and statistics we couldn’t find on the ground and additional references that re-confirm our findings.

1. Fate of those killed, disappeared & injured and their families:

In almost every village in the North we have visited, especially in the Vanni, we met families of those killed or disappeared during the last five months of war in 2009, in the years 2006-2009 and decades of war. In a submission to the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission on 8^th January 2011, the Catholic Diocese of Mannar, led by the Catholic Bishop of Mannar, Rt. Rev. Dr. Rayappu Joseph, asked for clarification about the fate of 146,729 people who were unaccounted for between October 2008 and May 2009, based on government statistics and documentary evidence.[ii] The submission also included a list of 100 people disappeared from the Mannar district between 2007-2009 and list of 166 persons reported as killed from the Mannar district in the last phase of the war. There has been no response received from the LLRC or any government official to these.

Searching and waiting for loved ones whom have disappeared

The lack of official acknowledgment of these killings and disappearances and independent mechanisms to confirm the killings and trace those disappeared are major concerns of Tamils living in the North. The Human Rights Commission and adhoc Presidential Commissions appointed since 2006 (such as the LLRC, Udalagama Commission and Mahanama Tillekeratne Commission) have failed to respond to these needs.

In almost every village we had visited in the Vanni, the former LTTE controlled areas, we also met people injured in the war. We have met people who lost both legs and those who have lost legs and arms and variety of other injuries and related sicknesses. Most of them have not received adequate assistance and struggle to live productively, with some finding it difficult to even continue medical treatment.

2. Detention and release of alleged LTTE suspects:

We also met many families whose loved ones have been detained for long time. According to the government, 876 persons are held in administrative detention at the Boosa detebtion facility in Southern Sri Lanka and 863 of them are Tamil.[iii] No information is provided about the period of their detention and we had heard about cases where detainees have been in detention for more than ten years without being convicted. In addition to the around 280,000 displaced who were detained, the number of those detained in “rehabilitation” centres is believed to be 12,000. There is no fixed and exact official figure, with various government officials and politicians giving different numbers at different times. The government claimed 1000 were in “rehabilitation” centres as of 17^th Oct. 2011 out of 11,951 that were on “rehabilitation” – voluntarily & based on court orders, plus a further 994 that had been transferred from custody of the Terrorist Investigation Department to “rehabilitation” centres. [iv]

In an interview to the Sunday Observer of 9^th October 2011, reproduced in the official website of the Bureau of the Commissioner General of Rehabilitation, the Commissioner General of Rehabilitation had claimed that “Those who were fully involved with the LTTE were removed to Boossa and there was a fair amount of such people” and that “The TID categorized the people and took away those in the categories A,B & C; LTTE leaders, strict followers, and those who were assigned to recover things and arrest others”.[v] There is no information provided about how many were taken away, their names and details and where they are now.

Given history of enforced disappearances, torture and long detention in Sri Lanka this lack of uncertainty in numbers, together with lack of centralized list of detainees indicating place of detention and transfers, raised serious concerns about security of those in detention.

There is no clarity regarding whether or not or when the 1000 remaining in “rehabilitation” would be released or prosecuted. Different government officials and politicians have given different numbers that would be prosecuted, with no one indicating a time frame.[vi] Despite the lack of clear official statistics about how many entered the “rehabilitation” process, the Commissioner General of Rehabilitation implies that most of the 12,000 surrendered in May 2009 after the death of the LTTE leader.[vii] In the same interview, the Commissioner General admits that the maximum period these persons could be kept lawfully in “rehabilitation” is two years – raising concern that the 1000 remaining as of 17^th October 2011, and indeed the majority of those kept after May 2011, are / were being kept illegally.

One of the alarming developments seen since the end of the war has been the threats, intimidation and restrictions placed on detainees released. Those released are being subjected to repeated registration, surveillance, interrogation in their homes and military and police camps. Many had restrictions placed on freedom of movement, such as getting permission of military before they leave their villages. [viii] At least one such person we met had been re-arrested, detained in Kandy for about a month in which process relatives observed signs that he was tortured.

3. Detention, release, “resettlement” and imminent forcible relocation of the displaced:

The mass detention of more than 280,000 Tamils from the North who had borne the brunt of the last phase of the war was amongst the most visible outcomes of the end of the war throughout most of 2009. Probably due to massive international and some local pressure, Tamils detained began to be gradually released, starting with children, elderly, injured etc. and by end of 2009, most people detained were granted freedom of movement.

From end of 2009, those displaced who were released were gradually allowed to go back to their villages in the formerly LTTE controlled areas. However, people are not allowed to go back to resettle in at least 9 villages in the Mullativu district and several more in Mannar, Killinochi and Jaffna districts which are presently occupied by the Navy and Army.

According to the latest Joint Humanitarian Update on the UN OCHA website, based on statistics of the GOSL[ix], as of end of September 2011, more than 120,000 people remain displaced.

65,008 persons who were displaced in the last phase of the war in the North after 2008 remains displaced, with 7,534 in camps and 57,474 being with host families. The update also notes that a further 55,616 remains displaced, having being displaced prior to April 2008. This number includes 8,013 in camps and 47,603 with host families, and is likely to include people from both the North and the East.

One of the new concerns is the Government’s decision announced on 20^th September 2011 that 7,394 persons still living in Menik Farm (at time of announcement) will not be allowed to go back to their villages, but will be settled elsewhere, in Kombavil, a jungle area in the Mullativu district..[x] While we were not able to obtain official information as to what these villages are, information provided by displaced people indicate that the military is occupying 9 villages, not allowing displaced civilians to go back. From what we learnt, these villages includes Puthukudiruppu East, Puthukudiruppu West, Sivanagar, Manthuvil, Malligaitivu, Ananthapuram in the Puthukudiruppu DS Division and Mulliwaikal West, Ampalawanpokkani & Keppappilavu in the Maritimepattu DS Division. Despite go and see visits to Kombavil, many residents had expressed their unwillingness to go to Kombavil, and some had submitted a petition to the National Human Rights Commission in this regard.

We visited Kombavil twice in the last two months and observed that government appears to be going ahead with plans of compelling people in Menik Farm to resettle in Kombavil, despite people’s concerns. The latest Joint Humanitarian Update confirms that there is no confirmation that these people would be allowed to go back to their own villages or a timeline for such an eventuality, and also confirms that issues such as access to seaside fishing areas, farming/paddy land, access to adequate health services and alternative choices other than Kombavil are yet to be resolved. [xi]

The slow return of some Muslims forcibly evicted from the North by the LTTE and Sinhalese who had left the Northern Province, has also started, and this is indeed a positive development. Some such returns have led to tension between communities, primarily based on land issues and allegations of resource allocations. Preventing such tensions and ensuring that all communities have right to return to an conductive atmosphere where they can rebuild shattered lives, in a way that does not affect the rights and sensitivities of other communities has emerged as major challenge. For example, Tamils around Madhu road in Mannar district claims that there were 22 Sinhalese families in the area in 1990 and that 180 have requested for housing to the Assistant Government Agent of Madhu Division. TNA Member of Parliament, M. A. Sumanthiran has pointed out that that 45 houses have been provided by a state Bank while only 5 have been provided to Tamils in the area. [xii]

4. Militarization:

In the last month, several well known peace activists, senior lawyers and journalists have pointed out that two and half years after war, the whole of Sri Lanka and many facets of life, remains heavily militarized.[xiii]

In our visits to the North, it was clear that the North remains heavily militarized and this continues to be resented by the Tamils in the North, many of whom believe the military is responsible for killing, disappearing, torturing, and sexually abusing Tamils during decades of war. Tamils also see the military presence as an obstacle to restoration of normalcy and civilian life in the North in the post war era. The military continues to be the most visibly present and dominant institution in the North, particularly in the formerly LTTE controlled areas. According to the official website of the Ministry of Defense, a “new Security Forces Headquarters Complex at Kilinochchi, comprised of an air-conditioned conference hall plus a separate auditorium, administrative offices, computer and signal room, mess hall and a few other wings was ceremonially opened” on 21^st October and this had cost Rs. 40.6 million (around USD 369,000)[xiv].  According to TNA MP Sumanthiran, “there is one member of the armed forces for approximately every ten civilians in the Jaffna Peninsula”[xv]. According to military’s own statistics, in Jaffna, there are more than 35,000 troops[xvi] for an estimated 626,329 people[xvii], an average of one military personnel for every 18 civilians, which includes children and senior citizens. Defense Ministry quotes the Secretary of Defense saying that “Military Intelligence Corps had to be increased to 6 battalions from the original 1-2 battalions”[xviii]. Militarization is a dominant part of parcel of live in the North (and East as well), over riding and sidelining elected representatives from the area and civilian administrators. The Governors of both the North and Eastern province are senior military officers and Government Agent of one of the districts (Trincomalee) is also a former military officer. The military plays a dominant rule in controlling civil and religious bodies and community and social life. It has also encroached into law enforcement, resettlement, rehabilitation, development, sports, cultural, shops, restaurants, hair salons, farms, transport and even touristic activities. Examples of some of these are provided below. In all the village level Development Committees in Jaffna, the President is a military officer. [xix] Some village development committees, such as Pachchilaipalli 2, comprise entirely of military officers.[xx]The civil military coordination website claims that it’s Misison includes even the upliftment of people through “spiritual values”[xxi].

5. Degrading and discriminatory registration of civilians in the North:

Civilians in the North have been subjected to repeated registrations by the military during the war and also after the end of the war. But even in 2011, this continues to happen in the Vanni and also Jaffna.

Despite the Attorney General agreeing to suspect registration of civilians in Jaffna & Killinochi districts by the military in February 2011 after a five TNA Parliamentarians of the Jaffna district filed a fundamental rights application, registration continued. Various other forms had also been distributed in Jaffna by the Police for purpose of registering civilians.

6. Occupation of land:

Large amounts of private land, and sometimes whole villages have been occupied by the military and there have been no compensation schemes announced for these long takeover of land. Many such properties continue to be occupied by the military. The military also occupies state land, and bypasses administrative laws and procedures in putting up structures at their own whim and fancy, such as shops, restaurants, farms, monuments etc. One of the most blatant incidents is the occupation of Mullikulam village in the district of Mannar since September 2007 by the Navy, without following any legal procedures and displacing the entire population indefinitely. According to the Civil-Military website for Jaffna, 200 hectares of land is inaccessible for cultivation due to High Security Zones and further 6000 hectares of land is not in use due to effects of conflict[xxii]. According to TNA MP Sumanthiran, “Tamil people inhabited 18,880 sq km of land in the North and East, but after May 2009, the defense forces have occupied more than 7,000 sq km of land owned by Tamil people”[xxiii].

7. Continuing violence in highly militarized North:

Numerically, numbers of those reported as killed, disappeared, arrested and tortured have gone down in 2010-2011 compared to 2006-2009. But people continue to live in fear in the North as killings, disappearances, sexual abuse, robberies, extortion continue to be reported from the North since the end of the war. In a three month period of November 2010 – January 2011, 40 such incidents were reported, predominantly from Jaffna.

In August 2011, the military and police conducted a spree of attacks on civilians and threatened religious leaders in Jaffna, Vavuniya and Mannar, in relation to protests and concerns of the civilian population regarding military complicity in relation to attacks on women by “Grease devils”.[xxiv]

Like before, these incidents seem to happen despite a large and dominant presence of the military on a scale not seen in the rest of the country, bringing about well founded suspicions of the military’s tacit or explicit involvement in these incidents.

One of the most shocking and brutal violence by Police against Tamil civilians was seen on 20^th September 2011, when Mr. Udaya Pushparaja Antony Nithyaraja (31) of Jaffna District was severely tortured by police officers in the premises of the Jaffna Magistrate Courts[xxv].

8. Violence against women:

Many women complain of rape, sexual abuse, including by military officials[xxvi]. Women complain of soldiers visiting houses when there are no men, telephone calls and sms (text) messages etc. There have also been allegations of trafficking. Several soldiers were arrested for rape of women in 2010 in Vishvamdu. Women also have been the prime target of attacks by “Grease devils”[xxvii]

9. Attacks on dissent and threats and restrictions on freedom of expression, assembly and association:

On 16^th October 2011, a Jaffna University Student Union leader, who was also a well known as an outspoken civil rights activist, was brutally assaulted [xxviii] while on 29^th July 2011, senior journalist and news editor of Uthayan was severely assaulted.[xxix] Both these attacks resulted in victims being rushed to Jaffna hospital for treatment. On 28^th May 2011 one of Uthayan reporters was attacked by armed thugs when he was on his way to work.[xxx] The individuals and organizations have been known critics of the government. On 24^th July 2011, Networking for Rights, an exiled group of Sri Lankan activists and journalists reported that two foreign journalists had been interrogated at midnight in Jaffna by Police and were compelled to leave the region and that the next day, they were attacked and robbed at gun point.[xxxi]

Several human rights defenders in the North have been subjected to threats and intimidations since the end the war. On one occasion, the names of a group of human rights defenders that participated in a human rights training in the North were printed in a mainstream national Sinhalese newspaper, along with the organizers, portraying all as traitors.

Several others have been questioned by military and intelligence and beaten. One was stopped and questioned at the airport in December 2010 and another questioned and slapped on arrival at the airport in September 2011.

On 16^th June 2011, a meeting of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), the political party which won comprehensively in successive elections in the North, was broken up by the army and peopling attending the meeting attacked.[xxxii] In June 2011, it was reported in the Sinhalese newspaper “Ravaya” that the military had threatened people in Vanni not to participate in a protest of families of disappeared people and subsequently detained and interrogated two of the organizers. On the night of 1^st April, a Catholic Priest who had spoken out about problems facing civilians in Jaffna at a meeting with the visiting Congress of Religions delegation, had cow dung thrown at him.

Such incidents have also instilled fear amongst human rights defenders, journalists, opposition politicians and anyone holding dissenting views with the government.

Many NGOs and church groups keen to engage in counseling, community organizing and provision of other materials and services to people in the North continue to complain about restrictions and stringent regulations imposed by the Presidential Task Force (PTF). The difficulties in obtaining permission to provide any form of assistance drives away and discourages many groups and individuals keen to help people affected by the war, and this denies desperate people from receiving much needed support.

In many areas of the North, particularly in formerly LTTE controlled areas, the military demand advance notification of any social events and attend such events without invitation. On one occasion, Police officers interrupted the awards ceremony of a cricket tournament and took away a trophy on offer, alleging that it was in the name of a former LTTEer. In actual fact, the trophy in question was donated by family members in memory of parents that were dead.

10. Restrictions on freedom of movement in the North:

Despite the opening up of the A9 road in December 2009 and easing of some travel restrictions between the North and the South, travel restrictions still remain to the North. The Omanthai checkpoint serves as a separation of the North from rest of the country, and the separate and concept of entry / exit is indicated by a board that says “remain here until you are granted entry”.

In July 2011, a Sri Lankan journalist faced restrictions on travelling in the North, including being detained and questioned at an Army camp for several hours. Also in July 2011, days after an official announcement by the government that restrictions on travel for foreign nationals to the North have been lifted, the Ministry of External Affairs has insisted on additional documentation such as pre-planned travel itinerary for a visiting foreign national, who had a legitimate visa to visit Sri Lanka. The military officials allowed her to pass the Omanthai checkpoint, the main entry point to previously LTTE controlled areas, only after she showed a letter authorizing her to travel to specified cities for a specified time period from the Ministry of External Affairs, which according to her had been issued after obtaining approval of the Ministry of Defense. A friend from north who had called the Ministry of Defense was told that foreign nationals can only travel on the A9 road, and travelling to interior villages still required prior permission.

11. Sinhalese – Buddhist domination:

Fears and unhappiness about Sinhalese – Buddhist domination in predominantly Tamil areas was repeatedly expressed by people we met. We ourselves saw many indicators of such attempts. TNA MP Sumanthiran’s report to Parliament raises concerns that “steps are being taken to divide the District of Mullaitivu and create within it the new District Secretariat division of ‘Weli Oya’ and that there are orders issued to “to have Tamil civil servants removed or transferred from the North and to fill the vacant posts with Sinhala trainee civil servants and that one hundred and forty Sinhala civil servants have been relocated to the North as part of this initiative and Tamil civil servants have been ordered to go on compulsory leave, and further, that these drastic measures must be viewed in the backdrop of systematic deliberate exclusion of Tamils in the civil service in selection processes, promotions, trainings and development opportunities”[xxxiii].

Despite the North being predominantly Tamil, many road signs continue to be in Sinhalese. We noticed several such Sinhalese names around Mullativu on the eastern coast of Vanni and around Mulangavil and Adampan on the western coast of Vanni. We also observed several road names in Sinhalese only, named after Sinhalese soldiers.

Even some release letters for detainees, forms collecting socio-economic information are not in the Tamil language in the North.

The North also remains predominantly Hindu and Christian, and thus, the building of several new Buddhist statues and structures have also made Northern Tamils fearful of Buddhist domination of the North.

12. Lack of shelter, livelihoods, healthcare, educational, transport facilities:

30 months after the end of the war, people whose houses were razed to the ground due to no fault of their own, have not been provided houses by the GOSL. The few houses that have been provided have been built through people’s own efforts and with support of their relatives, friends, foreign governments, and private groups. However, all over the Vanni, military has been provided with housing that appears of much better quality than the housing displaced persons are compelled to live.

Some schools damaged in the war are still not repaired and it is common to see classes conducted in open air. Some schools are still occupied by military and some are still closed. TNA MP Sumanthiran sites examples of schools occupied by the military as Keppapilavu GTM school in Keppapilavu, Mulliyawalai, Mullaitivu, the Maththalan R.C.G.T.M. School in Mulliwaikkal, Mullaitivu, Mullivaikkal West K.S.V Mullivaikkal,Mullaitivu Mulliwaikkal East GTM School, Mulliwaikkal Mullaitivu, Vikneshwara Vidiyalayam Pooneryn, Arasaratnam Vidyalayam Manthuvil Puthukkudiyiruppu, Sivanagar Tamil Vidyalayam Puthukkudiyiruppu Mullaitivu and the Myliddy, R.C.T.M.S Mylidy, Kankesenthurai[xxxiv].

Hospital and medical facilities also remain scarce and often, people have to walk long distances and queue up for healthcare. According to the latest Joint Humanitarian Report, many primary medical care units and divisional hospitals in the North are still not functioning. [xxxv] TNA MP Sumanthiran’s October report to Parliament highlights inadequate health services in the Vanni, citing the This avoidable death of patient deaths, such as the death of a girl on 7th October 2011 as a result of untreated rabies[xxxvi].

Livelihood options remain scarce and most people live improvised and poor lives. Although some have been provided livelihood support by UN, church groups and NGOs, many remain improvised. A major o obstacle to develop livelihoods based on local resources has been the military encroachment into livelihood activities. The military regulates fishing, issuing passes to go to sea. Fishermen in Mannar district showed us three separate forms that require 30 signatures plus photos and additional documents, to enable fishermen to go fishing.

Some Northern Tamil fisherman allege that military often gives special privileges to Sinhalese fisherfolk from the South. The report tabled TNA MP Sumanthiran notes that while there are restrictions on fishing by Tamil fishermen in villages in Mullativu district such as in Kokkilaai to Chundikkulam in Kilaakaththai, Maathirikkiraama, Uppumaaveli, Thoondai, Alambil, Semmalai, Naayaaru, Kokkuththoduvaai, and Karunaattukkernee, Sinhala fishermen in the area have received direct permission to fish in this area from the Ministry of Defense. He also claims that while Sinhalese fishermen are given preferential treatment to fish in the North, Tamil fishermen are not given reciprocal permission to engage in fishing in the South[xxxvii]. Mr. Sumanthiran also reported that “people returned by the government to Uduththurai in Maruthenkerny (Vadamarachchi East), were soon after evicted from their houses along the coast and placed in transit camps on the other side of the coastal road. These houses are now being occupied by people brought from the South who are permitted by the Ministry of Defense to engage in diving for coral and star fish”[xxxviii].

In our visits to the North, we saw that the military has also started a large number of business, such as restaurants, shops, farm, hair salons, holiday resorts and tourism projects, denying the local people the opportunity to develop their own initiatives using local resources. The Civil-Military Coordination website lists “Tour Guide Service” amongst the services it offers[xxxix]. It appears that the military is using state resources for some of these activities and the legality of some of these activities is in doubt.

TNA MP Sumanthiran also highlighted the situation of unemployment in the North and East, saying “ The limited opportunities available are consistently given to individuals of the labour workforce from the South. Estimates suggest that unemployment in the Northern Province is between 20% to 30% in the Northern Province, compared to a National average of 4.3%. The reservoir bunds repair and road construction of the A9 road and the secondary road have been handed over to Sinhalese contractors from the South who bring in their own labour force. Only an insignificant number of Tamil labourers are employed by them despite the fact that there are numerous Tamil youth and men who are unemployed in the Vanni”[xl].

13. Impunity, allegations of war crimes, calls for international inquiry and LLRC:

Many human rights violations, abuses, criminal and illegal activities since the end of the war, including some mentioned above, continue unchecked and it appears that rule of law simply doesn’t exist in the North or a different sets of rules and laws apply in the North, distinct from rest of the country.

Allegations that grave violations of international humanitarian and human rights law occurred during the last stages of the war, particularly from January – May 2009 is a recurring theme in the post war scenario. Allegations have been leveled against both the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE. However, with killing of the LTTE chief along with other top leaders, the focus of accountability has focused on the Sri Lankan government, given also it’s national and international obligations as a state. Allegations included the killing of thousands of civilians due to shelling and bombing, targeted shooting, attacks on hospitals, schools, churches, restrictions on essential humanitarian assistance including food and medicine. Civilians, doctors, religious leaders and militants who survived the last months of the war had given a number of first hand eyewitness accounts to the government appointed Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) when it held sessions in the North. University Teachers for Human Rights – Jaffna, a Sri Lankan group with a reputation for detailed reporting of human rights violations during the decades of war, produced a damning report of abuses by both the Government and the LTTE, while international human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group also produced detailed reports containing such allegations. The United States of America Department of State also produced a report containing similar allegations. The last and most damning report came from a panel of experts on accountability in Sri Lanka, appointed by the UN Secretary General. Video and photos have also been circulating projecting horrific civilian casualties, including the shooting of unarmed LTTE cadres who had surrendered. A June 2011 50 minute documentary film produced by Channel 4, a British TV channel, and certification of the authenticity of some video clips by UN experts have raised visibility of allegations of war crimes nationally and internationally.

These allegations have led to calls for an independent international inquiry, by several western governments, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, international human rights groups and large numbers of Tamil Diaspora. Even the Indian government, which in the past had shielded the Sri Lankan government from criticisms, recently took a position that concerns being raised with regard to the sequence of events in the last days of the war needs to be examined. The failure of the Sri Lankan criminal justice system and a number of adhoc Presidential Commissions of Inquiry to establish the truth and ensure accountability for large and serious rights violations related to the war as well as unrelated to the war, such as extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, torture, sexual abuse have given credibility for calls for an international inquiry.

The government’s response has been on one hand, a blanket denial that any violations of international human rights and humanitarian law took place in the last days of the war. On the other hand, the government has gone to great lengths to try and convince domestic critiques and the international community that Sri Lanka’s domestic processes, particularly the recently appointed LLRC is capable of dealing with any allegations of human rights and humanitarian law during the war. Questions about independence of the LLRC, whose Chairman and several members have served the incumbent regime and even defended allegations against the regime in international forums have not instilled confidence and hope of those calling for international inquiry. Witnesses had received death threats, one told us that he had been questioned three times by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) between January 2011 (when he gave the testimony) and October 2011 and others have been visited by intelligence officers. The lack of victim and witness protection program, restricted mandate including the scope to look at only the specific period of 2002-2009, and lack of respect paid to victims and families who came forward to testify before the LLRC have further indicated the inability of the LLRC to serve as a credible accountability or transitional justice mechanism. One the damning indictments against the LLRC process is that after more than one year, key interim recommendations by the LLRC has not been implemented by the government, including releasing a list of detainees.

Until and unless there is a credible domestic mechanisms that is seen as independent, particularly by victims, survivors, their families and others who have leveled allegations, calls for international inquiry is likely to continue.

14. Ethnic and north – south polarization; celebrations in the South and mourning in the North:

Despite the fact that LTTE prevented civilians from leaving the war zone, including by shooting at people who tried to escape, the government’s claim that it had undertaken a “humanitarian operation” and “liberated / rescued civilians held hostage by the LTTE” didn’t appear to have any acceptance amongst the Tamils in the North while in other parts of the country, this claim appeared to have gained varying degrees of acceptance.

The visible response in areas outside the North and East of Sri Lanka when the war ended was one of joy and celebrations. This was predominantly the response of the majority Sinhalese community, in line with the position of the government of Sri Lanka. If those who had survived in hand dug bunkers felt some relief when finally the shelling, bombing and shooting stopped, it was not visible. What was visible in the North was tears and mourning for large numbers of Tamils killed, disappeared, injured and displaced.

Monument for the war victory in Puthukudiruppu

This polarization was again visible during the 1^st anniversary of the end of the war. The south celebrated with a grand victory parade, while in the North, the military cancelled the solemn and subdued low key religious – cultural events organized to grieve and mourn for those killed and disappeared. Those who organized and attended these events, including several Catholic priests, were threatened by the military. A Catholic priest who attempted to build some small monuments for those killed in the war was also threatened by the military. Cemeteries and memorials of Tamil militants in the North, where family members used to go to say a prayer, lay a flower and light a candle, were raised to the ground. Even the house of the LTTE leader’s parent’s in Jaffna was vandalized and when his mother passed away, her remains were desecrated. On the other hand, massive and posh looking monuments for Sinhalese soldiers had come up in the North.

Thus, Tamils in the north find that they don’t even have the right to remember and grieve in the new kind of “liberation” they have been dished out.

15. Ethnic and north – south polarization; rejection of Rajapakse government at successive elections in the North:

Three separate elections, namely presidential, parliamentary and local bodies, were held across the country including the North in 2010-2011. None of the three elections could be termed free and fair, with election monitoring bodies reporting intimidations, killings, attacks, and threats and massive abuse of state resources and state media before and during elections. However, the incumbent regime hastened to assure Sri Lankans and the international community that elections were indeed free and fair. Thus, in elections that the incumbent regime insisted was free and fair, the regime led by President Rajapakse suffered heavy defeat in three successive elections in the Tamil dominated Northern Province, including in areas that were previously controlled by the LTTE. The last of these elections, the local government elections in Jaffna, Mullativu and Killinochi saw unprecedented campaigning by the President himself, members of the parliament including the President’s influential brother and son, and other senior ministers. Material assistance and economic development was promised and generously dished out to desperately improvised communities who had their properties and livelihoods destroyed during the war. However, all these failed to convince the Tamil citizens, who voted overwhelmingly for the Tamil National Alliance, the leading Tamil party. However, in Sinhalese dominated areas of the country, the Rajapakse regime won overwhelmingly, with the main opposition United National Party and other smaller opposition parties suffering heavy defeats.

The elections results amply demonstrated the continuing polarization between the North and the South in relation to political aspirations of Tamils. In the northern local elections, government politicians and their supporters campaigned on basis that since they hold the all powerful executive presidency and more than two thirds power in the national parliament, the only way for improvised northern Tamils to rebuild their lives would be to vote for the government in the local elections too. The rejection of this by the Tamil voters, in one way could be interpreted as an assertion that their identity and political aspirations were important more than economic development even in the most desperate of circumstances. From another perspective, it was an assertion that Tamils in the north didn’t consider the brutal war waged by the Rajapakse regime that defeated the LTTE, as a “humanitarian operation” that “rescued / liberated” them (Tamil civilians) from the clutches of the LTTE.

Even after these overwhelming victories in the North and East in the parliamentary and local elections held in April 2010 and July 2011, the TNA is given very little opportunity to actively participate and contribute their perspectives towards development of the region, with the Rajapakse clan and the military determining policy and practice. Thus, there appears to be little prospect that the Tamil National Alliance’s parliamentarians and local government representatives elected by popular vote in the North could wield much influence in decisions that affect the life of Northern peoples.

Thus, a regime that was rejected at three successive elections by popular vote will continue to govern the North and make decisions about priorities that affect the life of people there. This could only change in the longer term with constitutional changes that will provide for significant power sharing and autonomy for the North. In the short term, the only way the popular vote will have a meaning in day to day governance would be if the Sinhalese dominated central government will agree to involve the elected representatives of the North and East in making decisions and determining policies and practices that affect the life of the people there and drastically reduce the military presence and stop the military from interfering in civilian life.

16. Way forward:

As mentioned at the outset, the restoration of normalcy to the North, enabling Northern people to live without fear and in dignity, with equal rights, freedoms, opportunities as their brothers and sisters in the rest of the country will serve as a key to lasting peace and reconciliation in the whole country.

In this regard, a key element will be reduction of the military presence in the north, reducing the role of the military and the restoration of civilian rule. Removal of restrictions on travel, fishing, freedom of association, assembly, expression, movement along with guaranteeing of the right to dissent, grieve, mourn, remember those killed and disappeared, build memorials for dead and disappeared will also be crucial indicators. The stopping of acts that have direct and indirect connotation of Sinhalese – Buddhist domination, ensuring that sign boards, official forms etc. are also in Tamil language, stopping land grabbing and reparation for victims and their families (those who had been killed, disappeared, injured, tortured, detained for long periods without charges, sexually abused, whose houses and land was occupied etc.) are also key steps towards reconciliation.

Accountability for violations that have happened, both in the last phase of the war as well as throughout the three decades of war, and post-war, including some incidents mentioned above, is also crucial. A process of truth telling which involves acknowledges the wrongs that have been done, identifies perpetrators would be essential, even to consider measures such as forgiveness and amnesty.

Recognition of historical grievances and political aspirations of the Tamil community, that led to the birth of the LTTE and other armed Tamil groups leading to three decades of war, and concrete and credible steps towards addressing these would be the another important element that we believe is crucial for Sri Lankans to move on to be able to live with each other without notions of enemy. Given the polarization amongst the Tamils and Sinhalese communities, as evident by starkly contrasting election results in the North and South as well as reactions to the end of the war, such a process is bound to be long drawn out and difficult. However, in the short term, what would be crucial is for the process to be seen as genuine and not leading to yet another initiative that would be abandoned. The support the present regime enjoys amongst the Sinhalese population makes it well placed to undertake such a process, and good starting point might be to resurrect the All Party Representative Committee (APRC) process that this regime itself initiated.

In the end, reconciliation and lasting peace will come through meaningful actions such as ones outlined above, rather than empty promises.

• Final text of TNA MP M.A. Sumanthiran’s speech in Parliament opposing the 18th Amendment
• “Sound is no substitute for argument”: Exclusive video of TNA MP M.A. Sumanthiran’s speech in parliament against 18th Amendment
• Hansard on 18th Amendment debate, 8 September 2010
• Life in an Open Prison
• Reconciliation in Sri Lanka: Breaking the Myth and Bringing the Truth

The power and promise of national exercises like the LLRC lie in the way that they can access the voices of those who have not traditionally been heard, and use them to build a more representative and inclusive collective memory. Yet for Sri Lanka’s Tamil women, the LLRC simply reaffirms bad old habits, writes Jo Baker [i]

In the lead up to the release of the report by Sri Lanka’s Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), strong concerns have been publicly raised about the value of a process that aims to build a clear picture of the conflict, without fully including or representing those who were most directly affected. This has led to important questions regarding who has been heard, how their concerns have been addressed, and whether they will feature fully in a final report and its recommendations. While such questions have focused on vital themes of accountability, ethnic discrimination and political will, often in relation to internationally-agreed standards, they have been resoundingly quiet in a criticalarea: the space and consideration being given to women.

Many governments in countries recovering from conflict are now taking stronger steps to include women in transitional instruments, such as peacekeeping strategies, reparations programmes and truth commissions, to better secure lasting peace and improve their standing at home and overseas. This is underscored by a legal commitment: non-discrimination is an inalienable human rights obligation, and a founding principle of the domestic legal and international legal order. In the mid nineties and early 2000s South Africa and Peru’s Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRCs) uncovered the shocking, previously unrecognised scale of crimes against women during apartheid and internal conflict respectively, and then responded with reparations and reform to address them. A few years later, commissions in Sierra Leone and Timor Leste built strongly on these improvements by broadly consulting women in their design and procedures, as I explore below.

These steps and others show a growing understanding that women’s concerns, needs and abilities have historically been a low state priority, and that women face greater difficulties in accessing state machinery. They recognise that they generally experience conflict and displacement differently to men and, in outnumbering them as survivors, have greater post-war roles and responsibilities, and different needs. And they show an improved understanding of the ways that truth commissions (TCs) and commissions of inquiry (CoIs) have long worked from a male standpoint, producing a ‘partial and narrow truth’ (Nesiah 2006), and excluding women from an instrument meant to shape future priorities and practices in the country.

It is therefore critical to ask what the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) has done to ensure that the LLRC – or any other memory-building or truth telling instrument – serves Sri Lanka’s women as well as its men; particularly minority women, who have been most deeply and directly affected by the war, and who are most deeply and directly discriminated against in general. Many will point to the floods of women who have clamoured to access the LLRC (as they have for a series of Sri Lankan CoIs). But have they truly been able to effectively use these mechanisms on a par with men? And have they been accepted as victims in their own right, or rather as mothers, sisters and daughters of victims? When Sri Lanka’s efforts are measured against international standards on non-discrimination, or against other recent commissions elsewhere in the world, a marked failure emerges by its government to uphold key human rights standards, via its massive exclusion of the female minority voice. Among all the critical assessments of the LLRC and discussions on transitional justice in Sri Lanka, this element should be receiving greater attention. As noted recently by, Valkyrie, a Groundviews columnist, in one of the few commentaries on this issue:

“For the Tamil women … ‘The not telling of the story serves as a perpetuation of [the conflict’s] tyranny’ which has the potential to provoke deep distortions in memory and the organization of everyday life later on. The fact that these are narratives which cannot be heard and cannot be witnessed to, is what constitutes a ‘mortal death blow to the survivors.’” [ii]

The following article looks at the need for gender-sensitive truth commissioning in Sri Lanka. It draws on international standards, examples of best practice elsewhere, and criticism of its past and current CoIs, before proposing ways to place Tamil women more centrally within the transitional narrative. It is abridged from my academic legal paper ‘Reconciling Truth and Gender: Lessons for Sri Lanka’, soon to appear in the coming issue of Sri Lanka’s Law and Society Trust Review, and currently available on my website. Please refer to the original for full referencing.

Part One: Disadvantage, compounded

Before looking at the how the GoSL should be addressing both gender and ethnic discrimination in its truth telling, it will be useful to briefly outline the intensified disadvantage that still confronts women in the country – particularly minority women. The chosen focus for my report was mainly on women from the Sri Lankan Tamil Hindu minority in the North and East, since they make up the majority of the survivors most severely affected by the last chapter of the conflict. This is however a vast and complex topic, and I look forward to the emergence of many deeper and more nuanced studies.

A multiple bind

Minority women in Sri Lanka fall at the crossroads of a sidelined gender and a sidelined ethnicity. During both war and peacetime this has meant greater challenges for them in education, employment and civil participation among many areas, which creates greater dependence and much higher levels of vulnerability. Minority women suffer the discrimination and disadvantages faced by all women in the country, for which the state is directly responsible (please refer to the 2011 Concluding Observations of the CEDAW Committee, its shadow report by the Women’s Media Collective, or The World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Report 2011, released last week), for example in the greater barriers to accessing justice through the police or courts. However they also experience the restrictions of stricter community traditions and customs. These tightened during the Sri Lankan war – as they have in other countries’ internal conflicts – with Tamil women cast as bearers of a threatened culture and therefore often more closely monitored. There is evidence that many lost control over how they behaved, dressed and who they married, despite the other forms of ambivalent (and arguably temporary) empowerment brought by the LTTE (De Mel; Rajasingham-Senanayake; Sornarajah; Abeysekera; see Part II Section ii of my report for elaboration).

Vulnerability to violence
Secondly, it is important to consider the particular experience of such women during and after the conflict: a combination of being unable to leave the ‘wrong place, at the wrong time’, being of the ‘wrong’ ethnicity and as is increasingly understood, of the ‘wrong’ gender.
Unlike many conflicts, rape and sexual violence do not appear to have been deployed as a tool in Sri Lanka’s war, but it has nevertheless been reportedly commonly perpetrated by state agents throughout, particularly in areas directly affected by conflict– therefore excessively victimising Tamil women (Wood 2006, 2009).[iii] The military has replaced most civil administrative systems in the North and East despite the well-documented link between militarisation and violations against women. Reports of the increase in sexual assault throughout high-security zones also cite a rise in prostitution, trafficking and STDs, since women – often without male partners, a place to live or a means of income – are being obliged to interact with male Sinhalese soldiers as part of their daily routine (ICG 2011).

Yet their ability to address these issues is low. As women, particularly minority women, they face more intense social pressure and rejection, and since the administration is not perceived to be safe or gender sensitive, protective or judicial action is extremely hard to come by. This produces a discriminatory environment in which minority women can be targeted without consequence. The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has reported that young, so-called low-caste women among ethnic minorities in Sri Lanka are more vulnerable to sexual violence, and that they ‘expect’ resistance and entrenched patriarchy “all the way from officials at the police stations, to the hospital personnel and the judiciary.”[iv] Meanwhile other women face uncertainties as to the fate of loved ones, stigmas related to widowhood or their political affiliation, and tremendous new roles and responsibilities, in situations such as displacement, where resources are scarce and security concerns extremely high. Injured and/or traumatized themselves, most such women are primary carers for other maimed and traumatized persons. They thus they bear specific needs and concerns that any post-conflict initiative, without applying a gender-lens, will be entirely unable to effectively address (Iqbal 2010: or please refer to Part II Section iii).

Barriers to expression

Just as the route through the courts has been hampered for such women, so has their route through civic means. Censorship and emergency regulations have affected all Sri Lankans, but those with the least access to the public domain are now even less able to express their needs and grievances, for example, through communal gatherings, which have been severely restricted in certain areas under emergency legislation. As Groundviews’ Valkyrie notes of Tamil women: “oral narratives are their only means at their disposal to record their experiences, trauma and survival mechanisms… these women have no space within the dominant narrative to place their stories on record.” [v] This is taking place in a narrative that is already masculine by default, has been intensely masculinized by conflict, and which – as Valkyrie notes – has seen the needs and experiences of Tamil women politically appropriated by both the State and the LTTE throughout the war. Part of the function of any truth-telling or reconciliation instrument should be to rectify and counter such gross imbalances.

Part Two: Reconciling truth and gender: Lessons for Sri Lanka

With these aspects in mind, I move onto truth commissioning, and why only a dedicated commitment to corrective measures – as understood in Sri Lanka’s international commitments – could begin to serve women equally and legally in a truth telling process. Although this comment may only be the tip of the iceberg in this area, it can at the least, highlight the gap between state practice and international standards, and avenues for further action.  To do so I will draw on accounts of past and current Sri Lankan experiences of truth-telling (or ‘lesson learning’), and practices recommended by human rights and transitional justice experts, with examples from other more successful commissions.

Although Sri Lanka’s CoIs and its LLRC have not explicitly featured truth-telling in their mandates, their aims align with those of many truth commissions:  to gather a credible picture of human rights violations during the course of the conflict through the often-public testimony of victims and witnesses. They are therefore strong indicators of State practice in this area.

Methodology

On the most direct, technical level, sex discrimination has been linked to the greater difficulty of female victims and witnesses, compared to men, in accessing and engaging effectively with truth commissions, resulting in the underreporting of issues that disproportionately affect them. As mentioned, obstacles include lower levels of education, economic independence and experience in the public realm, along with responsibilities that tie them to the home or to insecure forms of informal employment; made worse by the increased vulnerability of women to intimidation or obstruction, and in so many cases now, by displacement, widowhood or disability. Gender-sensitive operalisation and outreach are therefore critical to secure women’s access to truth commissions.

While Sri Lanka’s various inquiry mechanisms have been approached by a large majority of women, with strong efforts made by some commissioners in the 1990s to facilitate their physical access, many have been revictimised by ill-treatment, or the lack of support or protection given by the State. The LLRC and past CoIs have been linked to accounts of reprisal, pro-government bias and intimidation, and there has been no adequate State efforts to counter this, nor to adjust a narrative that has previously branded the mainly female Sri Lankans campaigning for investigations into disappearances as unpatriotic The LLRC has also been roundly criticized for its lack of victim-centred methodology and its failure to address the emotional needs of victims. Reports from the International Crisis Group (2011) and Amnesty International (2011), for example, tell of ‘desultory’, ‘curt and dismissive’ staff chastising women for crying, and requesting written submissions in the place of oral testimony, which has been linked to a particular lack of tolerance for female testifiers. According to the UN Panel of experts, submission forms were in Sinhalese and English only.

To prevent discrimination as internationally understood (see Part 1, Section ii of the original study), a convincing truth mechanism would both need to arrange effective protection throughout and after a commission, and provide women with gender-sensitive guidance for the duration of the procedure. The range of best practice runs from statement-taking and information-gathering by trained female officers, to appropriate levels of privacy in testimony, as detailed at length in World Bank and ICTJ guidelines (2006; Nesiah 2006). Protective psychological measures may include having mental health professionals on standby. Women should be able to choose private testimony, be interviewed away from other family members where possible, and staff should be trained to pick up on the cues that a woman may give if she has experienced forms of violence that she considers shameful. Recent truth commissions have dedicated public and private thematic sessions to women’s testimony of their experiences, expectations and needs, which in the case of South Africa for example, began with special preparatory workshops. This improved the healing function of the commission for women, while allowing them to discuss the shifting gender roles, and the new pressures on female breadwinners. (Nesiah 2006). One of eight national public hearings in Timor Leste’s Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation (CAVR) was on women and conflict; it included a broad range of women and covered issues from coercive birth control, to humanitarian concerns (Wandita et. al, 2006).  Furthermore, in contrast to allegations that the current LLRC has failed to create a supportive environment or bear the costs of witnesses, best practice dictates that technical assistance overcome difficulties that are more likely to inhibit women. (UN Secretary-General, 2011) This would include compensating their transport or child care costs, for example, or any money lost to absence from work, since so many work in the informal sector.

It has become quite recently understood that women are generally less ready to testify about violations against themselves than those against family members, and women in Sri Lanka have been no different. This has resulted in the severe underreporting and therefore under-consideration of the range of violations against women. To counter this, encouraging measures will be needed to inform the female population about their status as victims, the full spectrum of harms – including gendered harms – and their rights within a commission mandate.

Women often testify at great personal risk, of a physical, psychological, but also a markedly social nature, as mentioned above. While reprisals have certainly affected both men and women in Sri Lanka,[vi] and are ill-guarded against (ensured by parliament’s failure to enact the bill for witness protection in 2008), the stigma associated with sexual violence and other violations is a critical barrier for female testifiers, and can result in their estrangement from family members, and even the mistreatment of their children. This needs to be countered with community-targeted education projects. However it should be noted that in Sri Lanka this stigma can be viewed as led by both community and State, when considering the GoSL’s keenness to deny allegations of war crimes, including those of a sexual nature. This has placed a sector of vulnerable and violated women out of reach of assistance, and outside the national agenda.

A comprehensive outreach strategy is critical to any public truth or inquiry process, and must be sure to address all communities equally in a manner that they understand. According to accounts of the 1994 CoIs, victims would frequently testify without comprehending the goal or the outcome of the inquiry, and the LLRC has been criticized for its minimal public information programme. This speaks of the need for a media strategy to target different groups. For women this would offer reassurance that the process is safe and sensitive, let them know what will be expected of them, and very importantly – what they can ultimately expect themselves. This should involve information about evidentiary thresholds and how to write an adequate application (as recommended by the UN Panel, which cited the LLRC’s lack of Tamil language forms as evidence of its ‘basic modalities’).  NGOs have also condemned proceedings as ‘neither safe nor gender-sensitive’, and have highlighted inadequate Tamil translation and a bias toward hearing (male) community leaders. Past recommendations such as those from the World Bank and ICTJ, have included the wider use of community networks, which Tamil women are more likely to encounter, trust and understand, advertisements in local dialects in publications and programmes commonly read and watched by minority women, along with the use of NGO-run workshops – rather than, for example, using a government mouthpiece. These considerations extend to the dissemination of any final report.

Mandate

Yet the exclusion of women goes beyond procedure and access, to issues that run deeper. By applying a gender lens, scholars such as Vesuki Nesiah have begun to question why “some facts emerge as critical to the historical account and others fade into the backdrop of the private or domestic arena, and where some actors’ agency is recognized and privileged and others fade into the anonymity of spouses, mothers, and sisters” (Nesiah 2006  Mandates).  In arguing that there is no such thing as a gender-neutral truth, such writers argue that a State must acknowledge the human-rights dimensions of women’s experiences and give more space to gendered forms of ostracism and violence. This line of argument has been much influenced by advances in international criminal law, which have contributed to the growing recognition that crimes against women cannot be isolated from a political context.[vii] The realisation of non-discrimination in the operation of truth commissions therefore applies to the scope of violations covered in truth commission mandates, to their defining of a victim and their framing of truth.  Appraisals of past Sri Lankan mechanisms have not shown them to be ahead of the curve, by any means.[viii]  Any Sri Lanka-based CoI tasked with building a truthful picture of the conflict would need a mandate that empowers its commissioners to address and counteract the prioritizing of the male experience.

Some such progress has been seen in truth commissions without gender being explicitly mentioned in mandates. For example, in South Africa (initiated in 1995) and Peru’s TRCs (2001), commissioners pushed the envelope by interpreting gender-neutral language on torture and ill-treatment in a way that could address sexual violence. They began to link it directly to conflict and to the State’s failure to combat sex discrimination, recognising that State forces had targeted vulnerabilities tied to women’s gender.  Rape gained a higher profile as a conflict-related violation, and thanks to the work of women’s activists and academics in South Africa, it was excluded from the list of crimes subject to amnesty. In certain Sri Lankan CoIs too, despite narrow mandates, some commissioners attempted to consider aspects of women’s experiences. The Western, Southern and Sabaragamuwa Provinces (WSSP) CoI on disappearances in 1994 produced a short chapter on women in its final report that touched on the victimisation of women as abductees/detainees and as those ‘left behind’, and was able to raise some questions regarding  its observations that: “the climate of impunity existing during the major part of the period under scrutiny lead to the victimisation of women as much as men,” and that “some of the personal scores seem to be linked directly with the femaleness of the victim.”[ix]

Yet without dedicated expertise or clear guidelines, these efforts have left much unexplored and under-implemented, and they leave proceedings open to the bias of commissioners.  A narrow understanding of sexual violence for example, has meant that other violations and their effects have been regularly overlooked and their gendered roots and consequences left unexplored. This has advanced, according to Nesiah, a “partial and narrow truth” (Mandates 2006). She and others give the example of South Africa, where women’s experiences under apartheid saw rape receive much attention, but the ‘ordinary violence’ and deprivations that women experienced in the private sphere as a result of apartheid, largely ignored. These ranged from gender-specific violence and intimidation, to black and coloured women’s access to state services and basic provisions for living (for example during forced removals or under the group-area legislation that segregated living and working conditions).

In past Sri Lankan CoIs, most of these issues have barely arisen. The limited recommendations and perfunctory analysis of WSSP commissioners on the situation of women ‘left behind’ falls far short of current best practice, [x] and as with other commissions, women receive barely a mention in the rest of the report. Yet this remains one of the better examples to come from Sri Lanka. Although commissioners controversially decided to look at the rape and murder of girls who had been abducted from their homes by persons looking for their fathers or brothers, and they noted the involvement of gender-based ‘personaI scores’, there was little room to take this further. Its mandate excluded disappearances that arose from personal disputes and other forms of physical injury, which are the areas in which most violations against women tend to fall, and it did not allow for the necessary resources or expertise.  The LLRC has similarly given no explicit space to gender-based crimes, and few have been reported officially.[xi] According to Sri Lankan legal researcher, Ambika Satkunanathan: “We all hear stories, anecdotes… but sexual violence remains one of the least documented violations from this conflict.”[xii]  As a result women are consigned by their state to suffer indefinitely in silence.

In contrast, recently designed truth commissions have begun to build an explicit reference to gender into the legal instrument that creates them, ensuring dedicated staff, resources and guidelines – and many of the procedural improvements described above.  This has produced deeper investigations into the privatized and structural harms that come from conflict, and for the proper cross-distribution of these findings in the report and any follow up action. In Peru for example, a gender unit was partly funded by the UN Office of the High Commission of Human Rights. Although the mainstreaming of gender wasn’t hailed as a complete success, it was well represented in the final report and in its recommendations, which included a chapter on gender analysis and another on sexual violence against women (Guillerot 2006). Though it came as an unpleasant surprise to Peruvian society at the time by establishing the grave scale and range of the violence perpetrated against women during the conflict, the country was able to move forward with a programme of reforms and rehabilitation. In South Africa a similar unit was sparely funded and had to restrict itself to low-cost initiatives, and could therefore only mainly reach women who wished to come forward. (World Bank 2006)

To avoid discrimination a commission must investigate violations that were made possible by the war-fuelled environment of violence and impunity, in public, but also in the private realm where most women, due to social convention, are situated and too often overlooked.  One report for example, notes a growing culture of sexual and gender-based violence in the post-conflict period, with widowed mothers in particular being targeted, not only by the army, navy and military police, but by other male civilians (SuRG 2011). Rather than excluding ‘private harms’ therefore, as instructed by the 1994 CoIs, a mandate would include the impact of such violence in relation to women’s different socioeconomic circumstances; social ostracism, for example, or the effect on her chances of employment, and her family’s welfare. By doing so it would be much less at risk of recommending measures for reform and reparation that only suit men – which is another emerging field of study (see particularly, recent work by Ruth Rubio-Marin).

As a further illustration, given by a World Bank report (2006): to enquire into the gendered implications of disappearance in Sri Lanka would be to explain not only how acts of kidnapping, torture, rape or murder were able to take place, but also to account for the kinds of violation and hurdles to justice that women have experienced as they searched for disappeared relatives. The needs of female-headed households during displacement and periods of militarization would need to be identified, along with any other rights that may be violated due to the loss of their loved ones, whether related to health, employment, family life or education. This route leads to a holistic and healing process that equally addresses survivors, and which satisfies Sri Lanka’s international commitments.  Analysis by Peru’s TRC saw the prioritising of a new Declaration of Forced Disappearance, which the Ombudsman’s Office released if a claim was made and a disappeared person not found. This was recognized and hastened for the disproportionately positive impact it would have on women as the majority of survivors, in terms of their rights to property, inheritance and remarriage. Itholds significant parallels to the difficulties of Sri Lankan families, many female-headed, on obtaining death certificates.

Finally, for these issues to be addressed without sex discrimination, the time span of an inquiry would need to include periods of significance to women. In the case of Sri Lanka, this would include the months following the war, during which reports of human rights violations against IDPs in and outside of internment camps by military personnel were frequent, yet which the LLRC’s time frame excludes.

Composition and consultation

The underrepresentation of Tamil women in the public sphere and in past truth-telling exercises in Sri Lanka goes against best practice on firstly the composition of its panel, and secondly the need for broad consultation with women’s groups, as articulated in soft law provisions such as the UN’s 2005 Updated Principles on Impunity. The design of the mandate and procedure cannot be legitimately inclusive if drafting decisions take place in forums that lack input from women, along with other marginalized groups.

The presence of just one female Tamil commissioner out of eight (alongside just one other male Tamil), makes the LLRC composition ‘seriously deficient’ according to the UN Panel of Experts, and does not represent the diversity of Sri Lankan society – particularly those most directly affected by the conflict. Both Tamil commissioners meanwhile have been reported as less active or vocal than the other six, giving testifiers the impression of being marginalized themselves (CMTPC  2011). Civilian women have perceived a lack of interest or sympathy in their stories in comparison, they allege, to the (mostly male) officials or elite actors invited to take part. They have been berated for grieving publicly, passed over if unable to quickly compose themselves, and commissioners have suggested that in the interests of efficiency, one woman be chosen to represent others. Other reports tell of women being ‘driven away’ en mass. These are strong indications of a gender-related disregard for women’s experiences, and of bias in the methodology for selecting witnesses.

Problems of representation are arguably reflected in the final reports of Sri Lanka’s All Island and the WSSPs CoIs. Both were headed by female commissioners and both, though insufficiently, made some mention of women’s experiences, in contrast to the all-male North East CoI panel. Nevertheless, international standards require that stakeholder groups be proportionally represented (for example in the Beijing Platform for Action – which articulates the UN General Assembly’s definition of gender balance and perspective in special mechanisms). This is increasingly being seen. In Sierra Leone, for example, three out of seven commissioners were women. In Timor Leste two of seven were women, determined through public consultation and special sessions with women NGOs; regional commissioners were typically balanced between men and women, and led district teams of two male and two female statement takers, and a male and female victim support staff member; and the male executive director was supported by a female programme manager – an experienced activist in the field of gender and human rights (Wandita et al 2006).

Yet because gender balance does not guarantee a panel’s full understanding of the complexities surrounding the relationship between human rights, gender and ethnicity, the participation of experts in gender analysis and other related fields (such as anthropology and social psychology) is an important measure to prevent discrimination. In the same vein, the close involvement of women’s groups  is critical from the appointment process onward, and can help facilitate the periodic training of staff in gender sensitization, as well as inspire women’s confidence in the exercise. Before gender training in the Sierra Leone initiative, for example, some staff would question female victims of sexual violence about the clothes that they were wearing when attacked, and why they were outside alone, at night, showing clear discriminatory attitudes (World Bank 2006). Proactive outreach to communities, and coordination with survivors and victim’s groups, as seen in the kind of women-only public consultations and research projects pioneered in Timor Leste and Sierra Leone, can also forge closer links to victims and guard against discrimination by utilizing further expertise on gender – particularly in operational design. In Timor Leste, which was established under the interim UN government, women were mobilized and widely involved as civil groups, as experts on the steering committee and as commissioners at national, regional, and district levels, as well as partners on research projects and healing workshops. The gender training of staff in Sierra Leone, by UNIFEM (the UN’s former women’s agency) and other groups, contributed to broad contribution by women, and a final report that called for significant reforms to improve women’s participation in education, in political and social life, and community initiatives to encourage acceptance of the survivors of rape and sexual violence. Such initiatives are absent, and appear little considered in Sri Lanka during the transitional period.

Report

It is clear that women are affected by discrimination in truth commission mandates and procedures on an individual and a community level. However the product too – the final report – can have a great national impact, and is crucial for the full value of the process to be diffused throughout a society. There is little scope here to consider the kind of historical analysis needed in a truth commission’s report, its evaluation of institutional responsibility or its recommendations in approaching gender, power and victimisation, as covered by scholars such as Fionnuala Ni Aolain and Catherine Turner; Christine Bell and Catherine O Rourke; and  Ruth Rubio-Marin. It is also notable that neither the warrant of the LLRC or the Commission of Inquiry act require the publication of a final report, though one has been promised.  Yet it is important to realize that any discrimination in a truth commission’s mandate, composition and procedure will be carried onward in any reforms or reparations that it proposes, reducing the likelihood of for example, of gender-appropriate health care, rehabilitation, welfare payments or opportunities in the civic sector. And by cutting women from the process, the state is cutting them from the historical record and its benefits; from  consideration in the post-conflict agenda, and in any ‘lessons learned’. As mentioned, the final reports of certain commissions have included a special chapter on gender – some like Peru’s more successful than for example, South Africa, or the short chapter in Sri Lanka’s WSSP CoI. However increasingly, calls are being made for gender to be mainstreamed throughout the whole document to prevent women’s issues being ‘ghettoised’. If the purpose of a truth commission is to build a nation’s collective memory of a period, to leave more than 50% of those affected on the periphery of this memory is a gross act of discrimination, not only at that point in time, but extending far into the future.

Conclusion:

Truth-telling can offer opportunity amid crisis for those whose voices have not traditionally been heard. For Sri Lanka’s minority women, the opportunity is being dishearteningly wasted. By failing to uphold key human rights standards in its memory-building response to the conflict, the GoSL appears content with returning to and retrenching practices that have long violated the spectrum of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights held by Tamil women. Sri Lanka’s challenging political climate will limit the practical contribution of the recommendations made above. Yet with greater attention to the equality framework and corresponding best practice, I have tried at the very least, to highlight avenues that can begin to counteract the historical exclusion of Tamil women and place them more squarely, and legally, within the post conflict narrative – while also urging those who challenge Sri Lanka’s transitional justice mechanisms, to do so with sex equality in mind.  I find both aims illustrated in a 2011 report on Sri Lanka by the International Crisis Group – made without overtures to gender – which observes:

Rebuilding relations among those communities and getting to a point where each has some real understanding of what the others have gone through should be a central goal…  It may be several years before the country is able to have a truly inclusive and representative process, but it is something Sri Lankans should be able to look forward to.

Selected bibliography

Abeysekera, Sunila (2007) ‘Implications of Insurgency on Women: The Sri Lankan Experience’ in Ava Shrestha; Rita Thapa eds. The impact of armed conflicts on women in South Asia, Colombo: Regional Centre for Strategic Studies

Amnesty International (September 2011) When will they get justice? available at http://www.amnesty.org.uk/uploads/documents/doc_21824.pdf

Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) (2010) The State of Human Rights in Sri Lanka in 2010 available at http://www.humanrights.asia/resources/hrreport/2010/AHRC-SPR-010-2010.pdf

Baker, Jo (22 August 2009), A Thankless Task, South China Morning Post, available at http://www.jobakeronline.com/articles/a-thankless-task/

Coalition of Muslims & Tamils for Peace & Coexistence (15 July 2011) Two Years On: No War but no peace for women still facing the consequences of the war, available at http://cmtpc.wordpress.com/author/cmtpc.

De Mel, Neloufer (2001) Women and the Nation’s Narrative, New Delhi: Kali for Women

Guillerot, Julie (2006) ‘Linking Gender and Reparations in Peru: A Failed Opportunity’ in Ruth Rubio-Marin (ed.) What Happened to the Women? Gender and Reparations for Human Rights Violations, Social Science Research Council, New York, 2006.

International Crisis Group (18 July 2011) Reconciliation in Sri Lanka: Harder than Ever, Brussels: International Crisis Group

Iqbal, Rajani (23 October 2010) Women in Postwar Reconstruction and Reform in Sri Lanka, a presentation made at the Third Annual Conference of the Tamil Women’s Development Forum in London.

Nesiah, Vasuki (2006) Gender and Truth Commission Mandates (paper presented at Open Society Institute (OSI) forum on Gender and Transitional Justice, February 7, 2006), available at <www.ictj.org

Nesiah, Vasuki et al. (July 2006)  Truth Commissions and Gender: Principles, Policies, and Procedures,  for the International Center for Transitional Justice, available at http://ictj.org/ (last accessed 13 Sept 2011)

Rajasingham-Senanayake, Darini (2001) ‘Ambivalent Empowerment: The Tragedy of Tamil Women in Conflict’ in Ride Manchanda (ed) Women, War and Peace in South Asia, Beyond Victimhood to Agency; New Delhi: Sage Publications

Ruth Rubio-Marin (ed.) What Happened to the Women? Gender and Reparations for Human Rights Violations, Social Science Research Council, New York, 2006.

Sornarajah, Nanthini (August 2004) ‘The Experiences of Tamil Women: Nationalism, Construction of Gender and Women’s Political Agency, Part III,’ available at http://issues.lines-magazine.org/Art_Aug04/nanthini.htm#_edn1  )

Sri Lanka Supporting Regional Governance program (SuRG) (May 2011), Post-war support for widowed mothers: a gender impact assessment, Colombo: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)

The World Economic Forum (2011) Global Gender Gap Report, available at http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-2011/

United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (4 February 2011) Concluding comments to the combined fifth, sixth and seventh periodic reports of Sri Lanka, CEDAW/C/LKA/5-7, available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cedaw/docs/co/CEDAW-C-LKA-CO-7.pdf

United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (11 February 2011)  Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 18 of the Convention: Combined fifth to seventh periodic reports of Sri Lanka,  CEDAW/C/SR.971, United Nations, available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cedaw/docs/CEDAW-C-SR.971.pdf

United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (11 February 2011)  Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 18 of the Convention: Combined fifth to seventh periodic reports of Sri Lanka (continued), CEDAW/C/SR.972, United Nations, available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cedaw/docs/CEDAW-C-SR.972.pdf

United Nations Secretary-General (31 March 2011), Report of the Secretary General`s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4db7b23e2.html

United Nations Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity (8 February 2005) E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1

Valkyrie; (25 April 2011) National security’ in post-war Sri Lanka: Women’s (In) security in the North, Groundviews, available at http://groundviews.org/2011/04/25/national-security-in-post-war-sri-lanka-womens-in-security-in-the-north/

Wandita, G., Campbell-Nelson, K., and Leong Pereira, M., (2006) ‘Learning to Engender Reparations in Timor-Leste: Reaching Out to Female Victims’ in Ruth Rubio-Marin (ed.) What Happened to the Women? Gender and Reparations for Human Rights Violations, Social Science Research Council, New York, 2006.

Wood, Elisabeth Jean (2006) Variation in Sexual Violence During War  available at http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/cpworkshop/papers/Wood.pdf  and (2009) Armed Groups and Sexual Violence: When Is Wartime Rape Rare? Politics Society; 37; 131,available at http://www.polisci.upenn.edu/CPW/2010-2011/Wood_01.11.pdf

Women’s Media Collective (WMC) (July 2010) Sri Lanka Shadow Report To the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,  Colombo: Women’s Media Collective, available at http://www.womenandmedia.net/legal_statements/Sri_Lanka_NGO_Shadow_Report_to_CEDAW_July_2010.pdf

World Bank (2006) Gender, Justice and Truth Commissions, Washington DC: World Bank

###

Long Reads brings to Groundviews long-form journalism found in publications such as Foreign Policy, The New Yorker and the New York Times. This section, inspired by Longreads, offers more in-depth deliberation on key issues covered on Groundviews

• How hard is it to admit fault, Ambassador Wickramasuriya?
• A conversation with Kumudini Samuel
• Violence Against Women and Girls in Sri Lanka: No April Fools joke
• The Islamic Republic of Sri Lanka
• A slumbering LLRC: The image of reconciliation in Sri Lanka?

This was on the eve of the 21^st annual commemoration for disappeared persons held annuallyon the 27^th of October at the site of the monument, with the participation of families of disappeared persons, religious leaders, political leaders, human rights activists and concerned citizens.

This request to destroy the monument was preceded by several attempts by Fr. Prasad and the Parish Council to disrupt and discourage the use of the monument and the commemoration. These attempts included the construction of a wall that obstructed access between the monument and the church premises. Verbal and written appeals have been made by the leaders of the organization of Families of the Disappeared (FOD) to the Parish Priest and the Parish Council to facilitate the continuance of activities that take place surrounding the monument, including and the annual commemoration, but these have apparently fallen on deaf ears. Church leaders have made complaints regarding the monument to the Police and also threatened legal action against the Families of the Disappeared seeking a Court order to destroy the monument.

The main allegation by the Church is that the monument is situated on land belonging to the Catholic Church. This is the first time such allegations have been made in the past 11 years of the existence of the monument. The Church delegation had gone to the extent of accusing the Families of the Disappeared that they had “secretly built the monument in the night” despite it being built for over a period of two months and construction work taking placein broad daylight in full view of the Church premises and its access roads.

The fact that both the allegations made and the request to destroy the monument come from the Archdiocese’s official representative in charge of land issues together with a lawyer indicates that these allegations and the request to destroy the monument is most likely with the approval of leader of the Archdiocese, Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith.

What the monument is about:

The monument has photos of Sinhalese youth disappeared and killed in the late 1980s, during the regime of the United National Party. Families and loved ones still don’t know fate of many of them andprobably never will. These are persons who have no grave, no place to light a candle, no place to lay flowers and no place to say a prayer. It is in this context that the monument became a place for families of those killed and disappeared to gather collectively, together with concerned religious leaders, political leaders and citizens to light candles, lay flowers and conduct religious observances.

The monument has also become an important symbol and record of a tragic part of Sri Lankan history  -  – a part that the powerful and victors ignore. Even Presidential Commissions which heard tens of thousands of testimonies relating to disappearances refuse to publish their reports.

More importantly, the monument also provided a space to campaign against the heinous crime of disappearances and raise a voice demanding that it should never happen again, anywhere, to anyone.

The history of the October 27^th commemoration, the monument and the Catholic Church

The monument is built at the Seeduwa – Raddoluwa junction in the Gampaha district (Western Province), at the place where bodies of two disappeared trade union activists, H.M Ranjith and H. Lional, were found in 1989. During a period of severe repression, in which it was usual to find the bodies of those killed everywhere every morning, 17 people had come together to remember Lionel and Ranjith on 27^th October 1991. This continued over the years, drawing more people, including political leaders and activists from all over Sri Lanka and the world, including the present President and Ministers of cabinet. On 10^th December 1999, the foundation stone was laid for the monument, adjoining St. Cecelia’s Church by the roadside. It was opened on 4^th February 2000.

Commemorations at the site of the monument – before the monument was built

In the 1980s, some Catholic Priests who had tried to safeguard youth from being disappeared and killed and buried bodies when no one else dared to do so, were killed and threatened. Every year, Catholic Priests had come forward to conduct religious observances on the 27^th of October, to console grieving families and support these families’ and other activists’ efforts to struggle against disappearances and impunity. Amongst the Catholic Priests present at this year’s commemoration was Fr. Terence Fernando, who was amongst the 16 people who had gathered in 1991 for the first commemoration.

In the past, St. Cecilia’s Church had been very supportive of the commemoration and the building of the monument. The families and their supporters were invited to use the Church premises for activities related to the commemoration. Particularly significant had been the offering of the Church space for traditional alms giving to Buddhist Monks at the end of the October 27^th commemoration. There was a period when the first Sunday service after the 27^th of October was dedicated to the disappeared and their families, with family members invited to share their grief and the whole church community going to light candles at the monument. Over the last few years, I have d seen material displayed and distributed, meals served, and discussions held in the Church premises with the support of the Church.

For 20 years, no question or objection had been raised about the commemoration or the monument, nor had any allegation been made that church owned land was being used for this purpose.

Please not to destroy the monument:

During this year’s commemoration, Mrs. Annie Theresa, a Catholic mother whose son had disappeared in 1989 and had been participating in the commemoration for many years, pleaded with Church leaders not to destroy the monument and to allow the commemoration to continue. “My son has no grave, where can I lay flowers and pray?” she asked. The sister of a disappeared person asked “whenever I pass this way, I get down, lay flowers and go – where will I go if this monument is destroyed?” “The Church has been helping us in the past – why are they doing this now?” asked Mrs. Sandya Ekneligoda, wife of cartoonist Prageeth Ekneligoda, who disappeared in January 2010.

At the end of this year’s commemoration, families and others present held a protest against the request to destroy the monument and signed an appeal to the Cardinal not to destroy the monument.

Monuments, commemorations and Catholic Priests in the North & South 

In the North, the military has destroyed a number of memorials for Tamil militants where mothers and loves ones used to go and pray, light a candle and lay some flowers.

When a Tamil Catholic Priest in the North tried to erect a monument in memory of those killed and gone missing during the war, the military threatened him with death, compelling the Bishop to transfer the priest to ensure his safety.

When Tamil Catholic Priests in the North together with other Christian Clergy and Hindu Kurukkals tried to organize prayer services for those killed and disappeared, they were also threatened by the military and some events had to be cancelled. Military officers had even walked into a Church and stopped a service the Priest was conducting.

In St. Anne’s Church Vankalai (Diocese of Mannar in Northern Sri lanka) where I often visit and stay, is a statue to remember Fr. Mary Bastians, who was, in the presence of witnesses,shot dead by the military and whose body carried away, never to be seen again. His photo is also prominently displayed. Several times, I have participated in the commemorations on the 6^th of January, as the whole village gathers with the Bishop and other Priests to remember his killing and his selfless service for which he sacrificed his life.

Here in Colombo however, Sinhalese Catholic Priests appear to take on the role of the military in the North – demanding that Police destroy a monument of 11 years and a commemoration that has been held for 20 years.

Why destroy the monument and obstruct the annual October 27^th commemoration?

Amongst the many Sri Lankans killed and disappeared due to their commitment to serve the poor and oppressed and raise a voice against injustice, have been Catholic Priests. With few exceptions, such as the one I mentioned above in relation to St. Anne’s Church Vankalai, they are forgotten and not remembered.

Thus, in a way, it is not surprising that some Priests do not appreciate the importance of remembering tragedies, collective grieving and the inspiration and strength drawn through monuments and commemorations to prevent such occurrences in future.

But still, it is not easy to understand why these Church leaders want to destroy the monument and disrupt the commemoration.

Is it purely due to greed for land?

Or are they objecting now, because it is only in the last few years, that many Tamil families from the North and East, and Tamil Catholic Priests from North have started to attend the commemoration and organizers and speakers have become increasingly critical of the present government’s role in the disappearance and killing of Tamils?

Or is it because they want to follow the policy of the government in the North to destroy memorials for those killed and disappeared, disrupt any efforts to build a monument and organize religious observances for those killed and disappeared and threaten those organizing?

In the recent past, in several instances, such as those given below, the Cardinal and Catholic Church in Archdiocese of Colombo have been perceived to be supportive ofthe government instead of the poor, the oppressed and victims of human rights violations and injustices. The Cardinal and Priests in Colombo,

• supported the government in opposing the linking of human rights to GSP+ and attempts to balance trade privileges with the human dignity of all peoples
• joined the government in labeling the report of the Panel of Experts of the UN Secretary General as a conspiracy even when as Church leaders in the North affirmed the report
• stood by government MP Duminda Silva instead of supporting poor slum dwellers facing imminent evictions
• didn’t join and support the struggles of the fishing community of Negombo against a sea plane project that would have damaged the lagoon and the livelihood of the fishing community
• collaborated with the military in suppressing the public expression of grief and outrage over the brutal killing of Free Trade Zone worker Roshane Chanaka by the Police

Are the efforts of these Church leaders to destroy the monument for the disappeared and disrupt the the annual commemoration simply another example of the practice of defending the government against any allegations of abuses?

What is actually at stake?

What are these Church leaders actually trying to destroy?

It is just not a concrete structure, but the memory of loved ones with no grave and resting place, the space and sprit of collective grieving, consciousness, outrage and spirit and resolve not to let heinous crimes happen to anyone anywhere.

By The Way Side

This wreath

With no name attached

Is for you

Who have no grave

As the place of earth

Which embraced you

Could not be found,

This wreath was placed by the wayside

Forgive me

Forgive me

For placing a memorial for you

By the roadside

(A poem at the foot of the monument, by Basil Fernando, a key supporter of the monument from its inception)

• Fr. Jim Brown and Mr. Vimalathas: Five years after disappearance, where are they and what has happened to the investigation?
• Christmas 2008 in Sri Lanka
• Celebrating war victory and banning commemoration of dead civilians: this is “home grown & indigenous” reconciliation and freedom in Sri Lanka?
• Personal experience of the Vanni today
• Violating the Madhu Sancuary – Some brief thoughts

Image credit Steve Chao, via Al Jazeera

Good Afternoon; Esteemed and Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen; Dear friends

Thank you for inviting me to share with you my thoughts on reconciliation.

I will not devote much time here, to describe the history of the conflict or the background situation in Sri Lanka.

The physical and emotional pain that has been handed down through generations in Sri Lanka during the last five decades has mainly been the inevitable outcomes of past policies followed by the successive governments, based on discrimination and social exclusion. The players, particularly parties to the conflict, have continued their unceasing confrontational politics. The current landscape in Sri Lanka and within the diaspora bears testimony to this situation.

On-going effects of dispossession, destruction, dispersal and subjugation mean that the affected people have become the most disadvantaged in society. Indications are that the gap between the affluent and the poor continues to widen. The island’s leadership seems neither committed to a fair and equitable socio-economic vision, nor concerned about this situation that led to political violence in Sri Lanka on multiple occasions in the past.

The country’s top executive does not seem committed to leading its people to reconcile and build a united country where everybody can co-exist as equals. No demand or mass action for reconciliation seems to emanate from the bottom of the society that may influence the top executive.

Transitional Justice

Transitional justice has become the focus of societies coming to terms with their violent past and those who perpetrated that violence.

There is an ongoing debate between diverse schools of thought about transitional justice, mainly regarding the obligation to punish in post-conflict states.

Legalists believe that international law is central because it imposes an obligation on states to punish individuals guilty of the most serious violations of international law. As such, trials must be among the mechanisms chosen.

The ‘realist’ school believes that in the interests of democracy and stability, the choice should be left entirely to the post-conflict state concerned.

The strategic legalist school argues that accountability mechanisms such as trials are not mandatory, and should have social objectives beyond the punishment of the individual, such as providing the setting for social deliberations about justice.

The political realist position sees that formalised justice as destabilising and undemocratic and an impediment to peace; of use only as a bargaining chip to be bartered away for a better settlement.

The task of transitional justice is partly a forward-looking one that ensures violations will not recur in that society. Hence, such trial mechanisms should support the rule of law and ensure the presence of justice for ordinary people in post-conflict states.

In Sri Lanka, there has been no post-conflict change of state; rather the state has further reinforced its authoritarian mechanisms and tendencies. However, the legal and moral obligation to punish perpetrators of crimes against humanity has caused much consternation. This necessarily limits the options the state has at its disposal to deal with past violations, including the option of no action.

War crimes, as well as torture, genocide, and crimes against humanity in times of war and times of peace, are international crimes. Therefore, there exists a non-derogable obligation to prosecute or extradite the individuals responsible. No amnesties can be given to them. Five affirmative state obligations in international law are outlined, including the duty to:

1. establish the fate of victims
2. identify perpetrators
3. provide compensation to victims
4. take affirmative measures to prevent non-repetition, and
5. prosecute and punish those found guilty.

Those who favour minimum accountability to transitional justice suggest that accountability should never be bartered to arrive at peace, in whatever way that peace is defined. They also hold the view that trials are the most effective insurance against future repression, bring consolation to victims, and serve as an education in the rule of law.

Transitional justice and women

Regardless of political context, usually violence continues against women. Thus, they may not experience a transition to non-violence because of a cessation of formal hostilities.

If violations against women in armed conflict arise because of structural inequalities experienced during peacetime, then processes to address structural discrimination in society are required.

The post-conflict phase is often seen as an opportunity for women’s empowerment. However, the exact opposite may happen; a moment of opportunity in transitional societies can become what they term a moment of retrenchment.

Transitional justice and reconciliation

For societies like Sri Lanka, the reconciliation of its people is a necessary and essential condition.

Proponents recommending the implementation of transitional justice policies assert that natural and fundamental justice require individuals be held accountable for the worst violations of universal human rights such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Opponents of this policy argue that digging up the past and identifying perpetrators could sharpen societal divisions or provoke backlash leading to renewed conflict.

It is necessary to examine the conditions under which transitional justice can contribute to improving human rights and enhancing rule of law systems, or what sequencing or judicious combination of transitional justice mechanisms can help build democracy and resolve conflicts.

Efforts to promote transitional justice should not be abandoned because of the lack and contractiveness of the empirical findings.

Process of reconciliation

Martin Luther King Jr. differentiated between those who prefer a negative peace, which is the absence of tension to a positive peace, which is the presence of justice.[1] Transitional justice in a post-conflict state represents not just the alleviation of tension but also the positive presence of justice. An imposed peace that is bereft of genuine opportunities for peace is likely to be of little lasting value. Without genuine reconciliation, a society will be left with the same hatreds, fears, and anxieties that gave rise to the conflict in the first place,[2] exacerbating the possibility that conflict will again break out.

Reconciliation is a two way process. It is a process involving confession and apology on the one hand, and commitment and absolution on the other.

For the reconciliation process to work, the willingness of the conflicted parties to voluntarily admit to one another their responsibility for and guilt in inflicting death, injury and destruction on other parties, is essential. They will genuinely regret this and repent for all grievances committed. They will apologise for their role in inflicting death, harm, injury and destruction. They will release the anger and hostility the conflict had caused.

Those who offended will genuinely be obliged not to repeat what they did to harm other parties.[3]

Parties to the conflict will obviously attribute guilt and responsibility to its adversaries for the violence and harm inflicted, but at the same time, they will need also be self-critical and earnestly acknowledge their own role in causing or perpetrating violence and harm towards their adversaries.

They should also make sincere efforts to redress historic or past grievances that precipitated the conflict in the first place. The victims should be compensated for the harm done to them.

All parties should be honestly committed to develop and foster new, mutually beneficial relationships.[4]

The United Nations role

The Preamble of the United Nations Charter reinforces and elaborates on the ways and means the institution can contribute to post-conflict national efforts at reconciliation. [5]

People have inalienable rights because they are human beings and these rights should be respected under international law. Tremendous personal devastation and the incredible human costs caused during the Holocaust led to the assertion that people must be treated fairly and equally, regardless of their gender, race, colour, ethnicity, age, religion or personal beliefs.

Resolution 61/17.2 of the United Nations General Assembly signifies its determination to pursue reconciliation processes in societies affected or separated by conflicts, believing that such processes are crucial for establishing a renewed commitment to lasting peace in the aftermath of civil strife.

No country in the world qualifies more for such a process than Sri Lanka.

Therefore, it is important for all stakeholders to look at the activities that would transform the not so stable peace Sri Lanka has achieved after the military defeat of the LTTE in May 2009, into a durable end to the conflict itself.

Situation in Sri Lanka

Serious and credible allegations have been raised that Sri Lankan armed forces, their paramilitaries and the LTTE violated international humanitarian law during the last phase of the war.

The government of Sri Lanka has rejected these allegations arguing that there were no civilian deaths during the conflict, and those who had been killed were militants in civilian clothes. Pro-LTTE groups also have not admitted to the alleged war crimes committed by the LTTE.

The ghastly frames of indescribable executions and abuse shown by Channel 4 videos including Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields have opened up a Pandora’s box in Sri Lanka and overseas.

A wide range of diverse views have been expressed in response to the Channel 4 videos: that public showing of such alleged atrocities can be harmful to the reconciliation process in the island; that Channel 4 should have also shown the crimes committed by the LTTE on an equal footing of importance; and that detail of several frames pose doubts about the accuracy of these videos. The debate was more centred on atrocity based analysis of the last phase of the war, rather than focusing on restorative justice aspects of reconciliation.

At present, there are significant limitations to the delivery of justice, equity and fairness through the Sri Lankan judiciary system.

The Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), the Public Security Ordinance (PSO), and Emergency Regulations have often been used to override the Constitution[6].

Article 155 of the constitution allows President to enact emergency regulations under the PSO or any other law relating to public security. The abuse of these arbitrary powers can be attested by the reports made by diverse international and national agencies on the political and extra-judicial killings by organs of the state.

There is no separation of power between the Executive and the Legislature.

A Select Committee of Parliament can reverse a judgement by the courts. Such practice is unconstitutional and detrimental to judicial independence, is derogatory to the dignity of judges, and makes them subservient to the Legislature.[7]

The Attorney General is not accountable for his decisions either to the Parliament or to the Minister of Justice.[8] There is no legal or political remedy against the decisions of the Attorney General.

Many commissions have been appointed to investigate incidents of race violence, killing of media personnel, members of Parliament and many political opponents. However, given the powers of the state, it is not surprising that either the findings have not been made public, or the investigations did not progress due to the interference of state actors.

Such a denial of justice is a collective failure of democracy and its institutions.

It has been one of the major obstacles to achieving peace and national reconciliation.

Security considerations and military operations were given the highest priority curtailing individual and group rights of all peoples in Sri Lanka.

As time went by, social exclusion became the living experience of communities, shutting them out of the socio-economic, political and cultural systems of the mainstream society.

The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (the LLRC) in Sri Lanka was established by the same government that allegedly committed crimes against humanity.

The policy calculus that ensures discrimination and social exclusion remains.

Its efficacy as a truth seeking mechanism is questionable, because the mandate of the LLRC is limited in scope; its establishment after the international scrutiny was focused on allegations of war crimes committed by Sri Lankan forces and rebels; its lack of sufficient independence; its rejection of the assistance of professional international experts; its ill-equipped nature to investigate the alleged war crimes; and the generally expected government interference in its proceedings.

So, one cannot expect the LLRC to follow the success of the South African Commission at creating the conditions necessary for reconciliation.

This view is reinforced not only by the nil outcomes that have held nobody accountable for the crimes investigated by similar probes and commissions before, but also by the cycle of impunity that continues to prevail in the island even two years after the end of the armed conflict.

Since 1948, we have witnessed the ripple effects of neo-colonial economic policies in the erosion of freedom of expression, human and political rights and the rise of bribery and corruption. Since the 1970s, younger generations of Sinhalese and Tamils who came from very similar socio-economic backgrounds revolted against the erosions of their rights. No Governments regardless of its political hue, recognised the underlying socio-political, economic and psychological causes of these revolts, i.e., discrimination, social exclusion and lack of opportunities.The measures the government had adopted did not seem to include a policy calculus that genuinely desired addressing the issues that led to the ongoing conflict.

The state’s response of increasing repression pushed both Sinhala and Tamil youth to revolt. The more repressive the state apparatus became the more our youth rebelled. Social exclusion brought about alienation of communities and resulted in military conflicts in both the south and the north.

Therefore, issues of reconciliation cannot be separated from the socio-economic, political and cultural broader issue prevailing in the island. Common ground between diverse interest groups needs to be established, while seeking ways to improve the process of negotiation between representatives of diverse communities and the government.

Once an earnest communication and consultation process begins engaging the people, the march towards reconciliation can gain momentum. A large peoples’ movement for reconciliation needs to emerge and embed itself in the Sri Lankan society. Symbolical expressions of their commitment to overcome the divide between our peoples will become paramount.

Therefore, a conflict resolution paradigm is vital so that the issues that led to the conflict can be resolved and antagonisms, hatreds and biases can be changed from negative, destructive forces into positive, constructive attitudes.[9]

Communication and consultation within and among our people will help foster an ongoing national and diasporic commitment to reconciliation, to address disadvantages and differences that led to the disastrous events that prevailed in our history.

Reconciliation will only become a reality when the majority of Sri Lankans support this idea. This is where facilitating public debate and discussion is an essential task. Such an exercise needs the leadership and commitment of the President, the government, the opposition and other relevant stakeholders.

The government and parliament need to recognize in its basic law that the island was settled by a diversity of communities with Sinhalese as the major community and that the political, legal, cultural and economic position of all its inhabitants, not just the majority, will be protected.

Parliament needs to enact legislation to put in place a process, which will unite all residents that would ensure problematic issues of reconciliation can be resolved with care.

Human rights

In 1994, Sri Lanka became a party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The convention explicitly states that there are:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

However, torture and summary executions were extensively used as a method of obtaining information and intimidating the general population. Since the 1980s, under emergency regulations, torture was and is often inflicted at undisclosed detention centres, the local Guantanamo camps of Sri Lanka.

There has been no progress in obtaining justice for past human rights abuses although the identities of many perpetrators are known. Of the 30,000 disappearances identified by commissions, only a few cases have been prosecuted. The reason provided was that there was no evidence. The reason for the lack of evidence was that no proper investigations were conducted, a perfect Catch 22 scenario. The system of prosecution is set up and controlled by the ruling political elite for safeguarding their interests and privileges. The results would have been better if there were an independent prosecution system.

The result of this is that the social structure and moral fabric at all levels of society have experienced irreparable damage. Fear and insecurity pervade all segments of the population, as torture, rape and murder have become customary weapons both in war and peace times. The violence has expanded to unarmed civilians as shown by recent incidents.

Accountability

The search for justice through reconciliation involves adoption of mechanisms to impose accountability for crimes and abuses that occurred during conflict, and development of an effective and fair legal system that promotes the rule of law that requires at a minimum, functioning law enforcement systems, courts, and corrections institutions.[10]

Accountability procedures can contribute to attaining and preserving peace in various ways by delineating between past events and present circumstances and indicating the founding of a new societal order.

The inability to provide the means for accountability undercuts faith in the rule of law.

… the potential benefits of ensuring accountability must be gauged against the likelihood that resort to some accountability device might disturb or undercut progress toward a durable peace, at least in the short run.    … the measures a government takes to protect human rights and punish perpetrators of grave human rights abuses – such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes – are likely to have effects on the social order within that state which, in turn, affects the prospects for peace there.[11]

Conclusion

In summary, the current situation in Sri Lanka reflects the lowest ebb in terms of relationship among its diverse peoples. The end of the war did not provide the means to achieve peace, rather it provides a new set of opportunities that can be grasped or thrown away.

Each society needs to decide for itself how to absolve perpetrators of death and violence and reconcile their victims with former adversaries. Even though reconciliation involves people talking to and understanding each other, it is still very difficult to achieve. Without a dedicated and genuine commitment by government and its stakeholders and proper mechanisms and structures, a process of reconciliation can hardly move forward.

Resorting to legal ways and means of reconciliation offers the possibility of healing that society, but only if participants in that reconciliation process are genuine, sincere and dedicated to preserving peace and political stability in that society. Through reconciliation, understanding takes primacy over vengeance, reparation has primacy over retaliation, and the human spirit has primacy over retribution. To defuse accumulated hatreds, amnesty might be granted to persons who make full public revelations regarding their politically motivated acts. However, amnesty should be a tool to defuse tensions, not to provide impunity for assassins who perpetrate genocide or commit widespread crimes against humanity.

For us it is an essential component in building a united Sri Lanka. Small policy steps, at least one-step at a time, taken towards achieving this vision, will help to bring closer to reality, the dream of our peoples of a peaceful, equitable and prosperous island.

Thank you for your kind attention.

• Unpacking the Truth in Sri Lanka
• Interview with Justice C.G. Weeramantry
• Human rights: Hackneyed or heightened in post-war Sri Lanka?
• Human Rights in Sri Lanka: Impunity against Accountability and Justice
• Reconciliation and accountability after the UN Panel’s report: Challenges and opportunities for Sri Lanka and the UN system

On 20^th September 2011 the Government of Sri Lanka had announced that Menik Farm, hosting 7394 persons (2097 families) will be closed down.[i] The solution imposed on these people has been to send them to Kombavil, an interior village in the Mullativu district.

Although the government claims the people are not allowed to go back due to landmines, the latest Joint Humanitarian Update[ii] has stated that “8.5 Grama Niladhari Divisions (GNDs) that currently remain closed due to continued military occupation and thus, remain inaccessible for humanitarian mine action and resettlement”.[1]

It is people living in these areas that are being forced to go to Kombavil.

Kombavil is a remote area, in the interiors of Puthukudiruppu, in middle of overgrown shrub jungle. When we were there, we observed that houses were very small and appear very basic. Workers confirmed that these houses would standard size of 12 feet by 15 feet, irrespective of family needs. The government had decided to send a first batch of 100 families to Kombavil on 5^th October, but workers in Kombavil said it would be difficult to complete even the basic semi permanent shelters and toilets before 5^th October.

When we visited Kombavil, it was clear that no infrastructure was in place. Fisherfolk would certainly face serious problems if they are compelled to live there. Infact, the people of Kombavil told us that even many of villagers from Kombavil have not yet been allowed to return after displacement.

The people are unhappy that after two and half years, instead of being allowed to go back to their own villages, they are being sent to an area they have never been to or known. Widows have expressed concerns about security and difficulties they would face in such an unknown area in rebuilding their lives and establishing livelihoods without support of men. Fears have also been expressed that no possibilities for fishing and farming exist in the proposed area and that no facilities exist for schools, places of worship, water etc.

There had been “come and tell visit” in which officials had briefed people about the plans to send them to Kombavil instead of their home villages. There had also been a “go and see visit” in which people to be sent to Kombavil were taken to see Kombavil. However, it is clear that these were just to present information after decisions had been taken, and not occasions where people affected could discuss options and alternatives.

Essentially, this is a decision imposed on these people, without any consultation and certainly not voluntary.  In a petition submitted to the IDP Project Office for the Vavuniya district of the National Human Rights Commission on 29^th Sept. 2011, people concerned have stated that “we want to go to our own homes and resettled”.

• Vaharai starves – International Community is Silent
• Tsunami and asbestos
• Double standards?
• Alliance Of Parties In The East?
• Forcible resettlements in East

Image courtesy Amber

Police attacks on civilians in Komarasankulam (Vavuniya district)

11 men were arrested by the Vavuniya Police in Komarasankulam at 10.30 pm on 20^th August 2011.  The men were severely beaten before arrest and at least two persons were tortured inside the Vavuniya Police Station. Another man was arrested when he visited the police station on 21^st August to recover his vehicle, which had been taken into custody during the incident on the 20^th. Two men who were tortured by the Vavuniya police received treatment at the Vavuniya Hospital. The rest were produced before the Vavuniya Magistrate on 23^rd August and remanded to the Vavuniya Prison.  All 12 men have since been released on bail. The next hearing is scheduled for 12^th October 2011.

Incident in Komarasankulam

At around 9.30 pm on 20^th August, two men wearing shorts and t-shirts and carrying a bag were seen opposite St. Mary’s Church in Komarasankulam. People telephoned the Officer in Charge (OIC) of the Sithamparapuram Police Station, said that suspected ‘grease men’ had entered the village and asked for protection. The OIC accused the people of fabricating these stories and  put down the phone.  Around 10 minutes later, a Sergeant from the Sidhambarapuram police, came to the church and inquired into the incident. However by this point, the suspicious men had left the scene.

A short while later, people saw the same two men coming back towards the church on a motorbike with the headlights off.  When the men saw the people gathered on the road, they turned and drove away from the village. A witness states that he and another boy from the village chased the bike up to Kalnatinakulam. They saw the men travelling back towards them on the bike. They stopped and questioned the men who said that they were police officers but did not produce any identification. Since the men claimed to be police, the witness and the other boy left them at Kalnatinakulam and returned to the Church. On the way, they saw a police jeep from Sithamparapuram drive into the Komarasankulam school premises. They returned to the Church and told the people what they had seen.

Around 10-11pm people who had gathered at the Church decided to search for the suspicious men and walked towards the Komarasankulam school premises. They found the motorbike used by the two men on the main road near the school. The bike was registered in the Sabaragamuwa Province, around 200km away from Vavuniya. The people began to search for the two men and found them hiding in a bush near the school grounds. The people demanded to know why the men were in the village and asked for proof that they were police officers. The men continued to insist that they were police officers but refused to produce any identification. While they were arguing, the police jeep drove out of the Komarasankulam school premises up to the crowd. The police Sergeant identified the two men as police officers and asked the people to release the men to his custody. The same Sergeant had visited the church earlier that night. The people refused and demanded that the men produce some identification to prove that they were in fact the police. As the argument continued and the men refused to provide any identification or reason for their presence in the village, the people grew agitated and began to beat the men with sticks. The Sergeant was also injured as he tried to protect the two men.

At this point, the Parish Priest in Komarasankulam, arrived at the scene and tried to stop the people from beating the men. The people refused to hand over the men or to allow the Sergeant to be taken to hospital for treatment. They stood in front of the Police vehicle and prevented the jeep from being moved. They also refused to allow the Sergeant to be taken to hospital by motor bike.

Later on, the OIC and 3 or 4 officers from the Sithamparapuram Police arrived at the scene. The people had surrounded the two men and refused to hand them over to the police, or to allow the police vehicles to be moved. At one point, the police tried to take the men away in a three wheeler, but this vehicle was also registered in the Sabaragamuwa province and the people were suspicious and refused to allow the vehicle to pass.

10 minutes later, around 20 officers from the Madukandha Army Camp arrived at the village and surrounded the people. There were around 150 villagers including women and children gathered at the time. The Army was able to negotiate with the people and the two men were released to Army custody.

Later, about 50-60 policemen from the Vavuniya Police Station arrived at the scene. Although the conflict had largely subsided by this time, the police carried riot gear and were armed with tear gas and batons. People saw the police  making sticks and poles out of branches and trees and many fled the scene. Around 75 men and boys who remained were surrounded by the police and ordered to sit on the floor. No one was allowed to leave the place. The Army moved aside when the police arrived and said that this was a matter to be resolved by the police. The Police were in uniform and civilian clothing and some of those present recognized the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of the Vavuniya Police among them.

Two priests from Vavuniya arrived at the scene at the same time as the police. The Parish Priest tried to negotiate with the police and explain that the conflict had been resolved and therefore, not to take the men to the Police Station. The police pushed the priest and threatened to take the priest also to the Police. Two boys from the village who had been translating for the police tried to help the priest. The Police immediately attacked the two boys, pushed them inside the Police vehicle and severely beat them. As the crowd became agitated, the Police began to beat the people with sticks and poles. According to one witness, when he tried to reach the Parish Priest, the police grabbed his head and pushed him into the jeep. When the priest tried to protect him, the police abused him and warned him not to intervene. One boy, who grabbed the priest’s hand as he was being dragged into the jeep, was beaten and fractured his leg.

Arrests

Many were able to escape when the police began to attack the people, but 11 men, including an 18 year old student, were arrested that night (20^th August). The police pushed the men inside the jeep and around 15 officers stood at the front of the vehicle so the men could not see out of the vehicle. They were driven around for around an hour and severely beaten inside the jeep before being taken to the Vavuniya Police Station at around 1am (21^st August).

At the police station the men were ordered to crawl on their knees for around 30 meters up to the station. The boy whose leg had been broken was also forced to crawl despite his injuries. The men were stripped to their underwear, searched and their personal belongings were taken by the police. The police recorded their details and 10 of them were put into a single overcrowded cell.  Another man whose father was Sinhalese was held separately. Once they were inside the cell they realized that a Catholic brother/seminarian was among the group arrested.

On 21^st August, a three wheeler driver from a neighboring village was arrested when he visited the police station to claim his vehicle which had been taken into police custody during the attack in Komarasankulam the previous night.

Torture

At around 2 am on 21^st August, two officers from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) came to the cell and called out two persons including the seminarian. The witness states that the officers appeared to be drunk. Both men were pushed in to the interrogation room and fell to the floor. There were five officers, two in police uniform and others in civilian clothing.

One victim states that: “the officers dragged me up and asked ‘will you hit the police’ when I tried to tell them that I did not hit the police, they asked me to shut up. When the officers began to hit me, I tried to shield my face with my hand. The officer ordered me to put my hand down and hit me with his fist, on my forehead, cheeks, chin and my ears. When he hit my ears I felt an electric shock pass through my body. I saw the seminarian being beaten by other officers in the same room. An officer hit me on the head with a baton. When I fell down, they trampled me and continued to beat me. They put me on a table and two officers held my hands and another beat the soles of my feet and my head with a baton. They pushed me on the floor and trampled and kicked my head. They questioned me about a robbery that took place in the village over three years ago. I said that I did not know anything about the robbery. When I tried to stand up, an officer kicked me in the head and I fell backward. Another officer grabbed me and slammed me against the wall. While I was being tortured, another senior officer in uniform entered the room. I thought that he was the OIC and begged him to release me. The officer picked up a baton and hit me on the head.”

According to the other victim, the seminarian, three Police officers hit him with batons on the head, face, ears hands and legs. He was not able to defend himself since all three were hitting him at once. They hit his left ear very badly and his ear drum burst as a result. For about two weeks he was unable to hear from his left ear. He still suffers pain on his face and head and continues to get medical treatment.

According to the first witness, the Police only stopped beating them, when the OIC entered the station and shouted at them to stop beating the prisoners. The OIC was not at the station when they were brought in. He believes that the OIC heard their screams and had seen the other detainees who were also injured from the beating earlier that night. Once the OIC arrived the police took them back to the cell at around 3 am (21^st August).

The seminarian states that they were locked in a small room, which had hardly any room to move about, and the squatting toilet also was inside the cell. They were not given food or water and had to drink from the tap used for the toilet. The detainees were taken to the Vavuniya Hospital at 4 am on 21^st August.

Vavuniya Hospital

At the hospital, the detainees were checked by the Judicial Medical Officer (JMO). She told one victim, who had been tortured by the police, that he had no visible injuries and did not need to be admitted for treatment. A Tamil male nurse convinced the JMO that the victim was in pain and may have suffered internal injuries, following which he was admitted for treatment. The seminarian was also admitted for treatment.

The JMO asked the victim how he had acquired the injuries and he told her that he had been tortured by the Vavuniya police. The victim saw the JMO speak to a person who he understood to be the OIC of the Vavuniya Police over the phone and ask him in Sinhalese, what she should state in the medical certificate. The JMO report which was given to the witness on 26^th August states that his injuries were due to an ‘assault by unknown persons’.

At the hospital, the victim had to lie on a bench and was not given any treatment until around 2 pm when he was given a painkiller. At around 4 pm he was given a bed and his feet were fastened by shackles to the bed. The two men who had been beaten by the villagers and the police Sergeant were also being treated in the same ward. The Sinhalese doctors would speak to the police officer and the two men but did not treat or speak to the witness. He was not given food or water until his mother brought him lunch on 22^nd August. He was asked to collect water from a tap outside the ward. Since he could not walk due to his injuries, he borrowed water from another patient to take his tablets.

On 21^st August, three intelligence officers from the Criminal Investigation Department visited the witness and took his statement. They made him sign the final statement, but he is not aware of its contents since the statement was written in Sinhalese, a language he doesn’t read.

A jailor from Vavuniya prison was stationed at the accident ward to monitor those visiting the witness and the seminarian. On 22^nd August, a friend visited the victim in the hospital but when he tried to speak to the victim he was told that the victim was in Police custody and he must obtain permission before speaking to him. A Catholic nun who visited the seminarian in the hospital was allowed to speak to him, but when the seminarian received a phone call, the jailor scolded them and asked the visitors to leave.

The victim was transferred to Ward 1 on 23^rd August. An x-ray was taken of his injuries but he was not given any treatment or checked by the doctors. He believes that the Sinhalese doctors were reluctant to treat him since they believed that he was a criminal who had attacked the police.

The seminarian states that he was admitted to the ENT ward and shackled to the bed. Different jailors were assigned in the ward to monitor his visitors. Some of the jailors tightened the restraints until it was very painful, and also chased away those visiting him and did not allow him to use the phone. Some others were friendlier, inquired what had happened and allowed visitors.

Court Proceedings

On 22^nd August around 150, parents, wives, relatives and friends of the 12 men gathered at the Vavuniya Court, believing that the men would be produced in Court that morning. Only one person was produced in Court as two were in Vavuniya hospital and 9 others had been taken to Anuradhapura prison. Relatives were told by the police, that the men had been taken to the Anuradhapura Remand Prison on 21^st August and could not be brought as there was no transport to bring them to Court in Vavuniya. The Judge gave permission for the seminarian to be released on bail as soon as he was discharged from the hospital.

On 23^rd August, 10 men were produced in the Vavuniya Court. They were represented by about 14 lawyers from the Vavuniya Bar. The police accused the men of beating and injuring a police officer on duty. Lawyers for the men argued that this was not a planned attack against the police and that the men had beaten the ‘grease men’ and the police were injured accidentally. The police objected to the men being released on bail and threatened that if the men were released, the police would not go to Komarasankulam on duty. They also warned that the police would not be responsible if anything should happen to the men once they were released.  Following the objections by the police, the Judge ordered the men to be remanded to the Vavuniya Remand Prison.

The men were produced in Court on 24^th and 25^th August. On the 24^th, the Judge refused bail but the following day he rejected police objections and ordered the men to be released on personal bail. The next hearing of the case is scheduled for 12^th October 2011.

Release

The victim had received treatment at the Vavuniya Hospital since 21^st August. On 25^th August he was discharged from hospital and taken to the Vavuniya Remand Prison where he was held in a cell for around 2 hours, until the jailor obtained a Court Order releasing him on bail. The victim was released at around 5 pm on 25^th August and returned home to Komarasankulam. On 26^th August, he received his medical certificate, signed by the JMO, which states that his injuries were caused by “unknown persons”, despite his statement on 21^st August that the injuries were due to torture by the Vavuniya police.

The Catholic Seminarian, who was tortured by the Vavuniya police, was released on bail on 22^nd August. However he continued to receive treatment at the Vavuniya Hospital and was shackled to a hospital bed when a Catholic nun visited him on 23^rd August.

Current Situation

The victim states that he lives in fear of a further attack or arrest by the police.  When the police objected to bail, they warned that they would not be responsible if anything were to happen to the men in the next 21 days. The victim is afraid to stay at home and as of 29^th August, had not returned to work out of fear for his life. He states that he can be easily recognized by the police since he was kept in the same ward as the injured policemen and the suspected grease men. He still suffers from severe pain, headaches and dizziness as a result of his injuries.

List of those arrested on 20^th night (all male)

1. Saranraj, 18 years, student Komarasankulam Maha Vidhyalaya
2. Robington, 21 years, Security Guard, Human Rights Commission
3. Jegetheesan, 25 years, Sales Executive at Browns Company, Vavuniya (Brother of Saranraj)
4. Vimalraj, 28 years, Mason
5. Denniston, 28 years, Barbershop owner
6. Emilraj, 29 years, Demining officer,
7. Gnanaruben, 32 years, Catholic Seminarian (Brother of Vimalraj)
8. Chandralal, 35 years, Demining FSD
9. Pushpaseelan, 38 years, MSF Logistics Assistant
10. Venthakoon, 38 years, Laborer
11. Selvam, 45 years, Mason
12. Local three wheeler driver from neighboring village – arrested the following day.

Army attacks against civilians in Josephvaz Nagar, Thottaveli and Pesalai (Mannar district)

On 22^nd August night, the military attacked around 800 civilians in Josephvaz Nagar, Thottaveli located in the Mannar District in the Northern Province of Sri Lanka. The people had set up a vigilance committee and placed make shift barriers to guard the village against grease devils. The military objected to such measures by the people and following an assault on some vigilantes at around 11.15 pm, where a military jeep was stopped at a barrier, several military jeeps entered the village and hundreds of officers attacked the people with guns and batons. The Parish Priest, Vicar General of the diocese and another priest were also threatened in the attack. At a meeting with the people following the attack, Mannar Commander, Brigadier Maithree Dias threatened to arrest the priests, accused them of instigating the people to attack the military and threatened to shoot any person who attempted to surround a military camp or vehicle in the future.

Vigilance Committee in Thottaveli

On 19^th August, the Parish Priest of Thottaveli informed the Erukulampitty Police that villages were scared about grease devils in the village and were planning to organize vigilance committees to prevent attacks in the village. On 21st August, the Head Quarters Inspector (HQI) of Mannar met the villagers and the Parish Priest in Josephvaz Nagar to discuss the grease devil issue. On both occasions, the Police requested that no violence should be used except in self defense. The Police also requested that if anyone was caught as suspected grease devils by villagers, they should be handed over to the police. The Parish Priest and villagers agreed to the conditions and vigilance committees were set up with police permission to guard the village between 6pm and 6 am each day.

Grease Devil Sightings

On 21^st and 22^nd August, between 6-8pm, two women had each seen a strange man, in different locations (in separate incidents), in Thottaveli, and suspected the person to be a grease devil. In the incident on 22^nd August, the woman saw a grease devil enter her house and shouted for help. The woman was in a state of shock and was not able to speak and explain anything to the others.  The villagers chased the man who was able to get away.

Attack on Civilians in Thottaveli

A witness states that on 22^nd night, he entered JV Nagar at around 11.00 pm, and passed a small makeshift barrier set up by the vigilance committee at the entrance to the village. The barrier was about 1 foot in height and made of logs and stones. On his way to the village, the witness saw a lorry with a tin roof parked opposite the Our Lady of Martyrs Church in Thottaveli, with its headlights switched off. A short while after the witness passed the barrier he saw the same vehicle try to enter the village with around 10 army officers inside. The villagers refused to allow the vehicle to pass and asked the Army officers why they wanted to enter the village at that late hour. The officers said that the entire area was under their control and that no one could stop them from entering the village at any time. They said that there was no need for a vigilance committee and that they would protect the village. The people said that the vigilance committee had been set up with police permission.

While the villagers were arguing, two officers got down from the vehicle and started beating the people near the barrier with guns and batons. Three villagers were injured in the attack. The others ran towards the Church, which is about 300 meters from the barrier, shouting that the army had entered the village and was attacking the people. They rang the Church bell signaling an emergency and around 300-500 people gathered near the Church. The Parish Priest also rushed to the Church on his motor bike and as he was parking his bike the Army vehicle stopped near the Church and the Army officers began to beat the people who had gathered there.

The Parish Priest spoke to the officers and tried to explain that the people had been given permission by the police to set up the vigilance committee. He told them to check with the police HQI about the arrangement and questioned them as to why they had attacked villagers who had not tried to harm the officers or their vehicle. The army insisted that would provide protection to the village and that they could enter the village at any time. The witness saw an Army officer making several phone calls and asking for reinforcement to be sent to the village to control the situation. Fearing that the situation would worsen, the Parish Priest called the Vicar General (VG) a senior Church leader in Mannar diocese (covering Mannar and Vavuniya districts) and then rushed to Erukalampitty Police Station. He hoped that the police would intervene and resolve the dispute between the military and the people. Another Catholic priest who was visiting his home in Josephvaz Nagar Nagar also arrived at the Church around this time.

When the Parish Priest reached the police station, there were only three officers at the station and they refused to come to the village at that time. The police tried to call the HQI Mannar and since he did not answer, the message was conveyed to another police officer. As the Parish Priest was leaving the police station around 15-20 Army officers came towards him in a threatening manner, with iron rods and sticks, shouting abusive words. The Army went away, and an attack was prevented when the Police intervened.

The Vicar General who then came with two more priests met the Parish Priest in front of the police station and they started to go to Josephvaz Nagar. The priests were stopped by Lt. Col. Sujeewa who refused to let them go towards the church. They proceeded after the intervention of the VG.

According to a witness, the Parish Priest returned to the village on his motorcycle at high speed and shouted to the people to leave the place. Behind him, the witness saw another army vehicle being driven at high speed towards the Church. Around 20 officers got down from the vehicle and started beating the people. Women and children were also in the crowd and were attacked. The people including the witness began to run from the scene. As the witness tried to enter his family compound, he was chased by three officers. One man who crossed in front of the witness was beaten on his back by an officer. The witness saw another injured person fall unconscious near the entrance to his compound. As he was trying to open his gate, the witness was beaten with a gun. The officers tried to chase him into the compound and continued to hit him as he tried to close the gate. A few minutes later, three officers entered the compound and ordered the witness to come with them. The witness’s wife and her parents were inside the house and his wife came out and told the officers repeatedly that he is her husband. The army finally left the compound but warned the witness that they knew how to deal with people like him. The witness stayed inside his house and estimates that around 20 Army vehicles entered the village.

At the Church, the Vicar General and the other priests tried to stop the army from beating the people but were unable to stop the violence. The Vicar General was also pushed by an Army officer but was saved by a senior officer who intervened. The officers did not allow the people near the Army vehicle, and several people had told the witness that they saw a masked man dressed in black sitting inside the vehicle. They believed that this was the grease man who had entered the village earlier that night. By this time several people had gathered near the Church and tried to ring the Church bell to signal that the people were being attacked. The people who rang the bell were severely beaten by the Army. The witness’ father, who lives near the church, saw Army officers deliberately damage the Parish Priest’s motorbike that was parked near the Church.  People estimated that there were between 15 – 23 army trucks in the village with hundreds of officers.

Meeting with Brigadier Dias around 1.30 am, 23^rd August

By around 1.30 am on 23^rd August, the violence had subsided and the Mannar area commander, Brigadier Maithree Dias, also came to the spot. He addressed around 300 people who had gathered at the church for safety. The Brigadier scolded them and accused the Catholic priests of instigating villagers to attack the military. He threatened to arrest the priests and shoot anyone that tried to come near a military camp or vehicle. He pointed to iron bars nearby that were being used for the construction of a new church, and accused the people of collecting weapons to attack the Army. He threatened to arrest around 8-10 boys who were preparing for their Advanced Level Examination in August and said that he would prevent them from completing the exam. The HQI of Mannar Police had also arrived at the scene based on a call made by Brigadier Dias. The Brigadier asked the police to arrest the priests, and the police said that they would make the arrest if the military would make a complaint.

Finally Brigadier Dias ordered the people to apologize for attacking the military and for breaching the peace. Several community leaders, who wished to prevent a further attack, stood up and apologized for the actions of the people. The military made video recordings of these statements as proof that the people had attacked the army. At around 2.30 am the people were ordered to leave the Church in single file and return to their homes. At least two people including a school teacher were attacked as they left the Church.

Several people were injured in the attack but were too afraid to visit a hospital for treatment. Several people told the witness that the military beat them with poles wrapped with barbed wire which increased the injuries.

Aftermath of the attack – 23^rd August 2011

On 23^rd August, in the afternoon, a military vehicle came at high speed into the village and parked near the Church. 3-4 officers got down and ran into the Church premises and left several minutes later. The officers went to the house where the Parish Priest was having lunch with another priest. A senior officer entered the house and spoke to the priests and asked about their health and spoke briefly on the previous nights incident. The military went back to the Church before leaving the village. The people believe that this operation was intended to scare or intimidate the villagers. On 23^rd August evening the villagers gathered in several groups in family compounds and set up guards around each compound for their safety.

Attacks on Civilians in Pesalai

A similar incident took place in Pesalai on 21^st August 2011 when a grease devil was seen inside the village by people who had organized to guard the village. When the man was chased by the people, he was seen running into a Navy checkpoint. The people surrounded the checkpoint and asked the military to produce or release the grease man.  Some villagers had claimed they saw the man changing his clothes inside the checkpoint. Over 700-1000 people were gathered near the checkpoint by this time. The military began to attack the people and 10-15 persons were admitted to the Mannar Hospital with serious injuries. Several more did not visit the hospital out of fear. The people asked the police for protection but were refused.

Meeting with Brigadier Dias on 24^th August

On 24^th August, a meeting was held at a Church in Pesalai (Mannar District). Brg. Dias, the Navy Commander for Mannar, the Divisional Secretary for Mannar and parish priests of Pesalai and Thottaveli (Josephvaz Nagar) participated with many people from both villages.

Brig Dias repeatedly threatened the people and said that the Army will shoot people if they caused trouble or tried to surround an Army camp or vehicle. He accused the priests of instigating people to violence. The Divisional Secretary asked the Parish Priest at Josephvaz Nagar Nagar to speak and he gave his account of the violence on 22^nd night. When he did so, Brigadier Dias threatened the priest and said that “I will talk and deal with you later”.

Following the attack on 22^nd August, there is an increased military and police presence in Josephvaz Nagar. The HQI and Army have visited the Parish Priest and taken down his personal details and contact numbers and inquired about the other Churches and villages that he goes to conduct religious services.

• JAFFNA: BRUTAL ASSAULT OF CIVILIANS IN NAVANTHURAI
• Fr. Jim Brown and Mr. Vimalathas: Five years after disappearance, where are they and what has happened to the investigation?
• Christmas 2008 in Sri Lanka
• Celebrating war victory and banning commemoration of dead civilians: this is “home grown & indigenous” reconciliation and freedom in Sri Lanka?
• Civilian cost of a humanitarian operation: miseries of liberated peoples of Musali and Naanatan divisions in Mannar waiting to go home

Mercenaries with misplaced consciences appear to be leading Sri Lanka’s latest band of apologists. Seldom does a hired hand leave such a damning trail as does Tamara Kunanayakam, Ambassador/Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations Office at Geneva and other International Organizations in Switzerland.

During the General Debate under Item 2 at the 18^th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council on 12 September 2011, H.E. Kunanayakam criticized the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay for her apparent ‘partiality’.[1] One is at a loss to comprehend what ‘partiality’ the Ambassador alludes to, except perhaps the fervency in which the High Commissioner has thus far discharged her mandate. In any event, there is no doubt that the High Commissioner will wear this curious brand like a badge of honour. The Ambassador goes on to state:

I must also observe that it appears that the High Commissioner does not have the will to even acknowledge a paradigm shift in the policy of the Government of Sri Lanka.  In her statement, she treats the lifting of emergency regulations so lightly and fails to acknowledge that they are withdrawn in their entirety.  Sri Lanka observes that the High Commissioner’s position on the withdrawal of emergency misleads the Council with regard to the true legal position.

In conclusion, Madam President, it has to be appreciated that each Member State of this Council does recognize the need to have a security related legislation, and it has to be noted that Sri Lanka’s only existing legislation as it stands today is less stringent than the modern legislations of some other countries, which provide for the most stringent of measures in the treatment of terrorism.

Any government apologist would be expected to make the point that emergency has been lifted and that normalcy has been restored in the country. In other words, it is perfectly safe to hold the Commonwealth Games in Sri Lanka. Yet the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) continues to be enforced—a negligible detail. Not surprisingly, the Ambassador fails to mention that the government has also introduced new regulations—just in case broad powers of search and seizure; detention without indictment for a period of up to eighteen months; admission of confessions in police custody as evidence; and the reversal of the presumption of innocence, all provided for under the PTA, are not enough to combat terrorism in the current context. The Government of Sri Lanka is obviously eager to eat the cake and have it—perhaps even place it under preventive detention. Despite signalling to the international community that normalcy has been restored, the government wishes to keep the anti-terror trick up its proverbial sleeve. The PTA and the additional regulations will no doubt be instrumental when the government looks to suppress dissenting voices in the future.

Returning to H.E. Kunanayakam, one is a Google search away from stumbling upon a delicious piece of irony. The Ambassador has commented on emergency and the PTA before. In fact, she appears to be remarkably proficient in analyzing the far-reaching consequences of the PTA, the same piece of security related legislation she calls ‘less stringent than the modern legislations of some other countries’. Back in February 1987, when the current UN Human Rights Council was called the Commission on Human Rights, and current presidents were called defenders of human rights, H.E. Kunanayakam launched a blistering assault on the emergency regime in Sri Lanka.[2] In an astonishingly lucid account of the dangers of anti-terror laws such as the PTA, she observed:

The Prevention of Terrorism Act and Emergency Regulations have removed most of the legal safeguards prescribed under the International Covenants on Human Rights. Prolonged incommunicado detention without trial is the norm. The whereabouts of people arrested and detained are not made known to relatives. Lawyers and relatives have no access to detainees in most cases.

Most of the arrests, the victims of which, by and large, are Tamils, are effected under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and Emergency Regulations. It may he noted that the Prevention of Terrorism Act has been described by the International Commission of Jurists as an ugly blot on the statute book of any civilised country. Sri Lanka has been ruled by the present government under a state of emergency for most of its life since 1977.

[I]t is in this context that many substantiated cases of torture and deaths in custody have been reported, so much so that the Special Rapporteur on Torture has expressed great concern [in] his report referring to Sri Lanka. The suspension of important legal safeguards under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and Emergency Regulations have created conditions conducive to the practice of torture.

Mr. Chairman, no longer can the government of Sri Lanka divert the attention of those genuinely concerned by the human rights situation in that country by references to separatism and terrorism. It must, as we said earlier, address itself to the root causes that have given rise to violence and violations that characterise Sri Lankan society today.

These sentiments ring eerily true almost 25 years later. Though little has changed as far as the predicament of those affected by emergency laws and the PTA are concerned, the voices that spoke on their behalf have now abandoned them.

There is a bitter lesson to be learned from this metamorphosis. Human rights defenders of today may return as government apologists tomorrow. This is not to say that the human rights community of Sri Lanka is packed with wolves in sheep’s clothing. Yet the community must be prepared to expose purely agenda-driven activism. The embarrassing contradiction that has befallen the Ambassador confirms the intuition that ‘human rights’ is not merely a set of rules, but a set of convictions; it is a calling that must be jealously guarded against usurpation by self-serving imposters. It is, ultimately, an enterprise that must proudly welcome the accusation of partiality.

• State of Emergency in Sri Lanka, with or without it
• Focus on Human Rights
• Post Arbour
• Youth activists on human rights in Sri Lanka
• Too tired to say ‘human rights’

Photo courtesy Vikalpa

Who is “Pulidaran?” What everyone knows – “On July 15, 2008, Pulidaran reportedly shot Kanapathipillai alias Satchi Master, while in Batticaloa prison.[1] What everyone does not, or chooses to ignore – “Pulidaran was a mere boy of 14 when he was arrested under suspicion of terrorism. Pulidaran was held for far longer than 18 months. He is now 29. He was detained for 14 long years before any charges were brought against him. In the news, Pulidaran was described as a LTTE cadre. Most readers did not stop to question what Pulidaran was doing in prison. The words “LTTE cadre” was more than sufficient to quell doubts.”[2] 

In “celebration” of the International Day of Democracy today, I would like to bring our attention back to the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA)[3], (particularly in light of the recent ‘so called’ removal of the Emergency Regulations (ER),) which has reared its ugly head in the “Democratic” Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka for more than three decades now. I say ‘so called’ because, a mere week following the President’s announcement to eliminate ER, our “eloquent” AG, Mohan Peiris tells the media “there is no change even though the emergency has been allowed to lapse.”[4] Thus affirming all fears that the Government’s move was purely cosmetic, and that it was in all likelihood only done to appease the international community albeit momentarily. Successive “Democratic” Governments of Sri Lanka have wielded this Secret Weapon which has enabled them to legitimize their illegal actions in the name of “safeguarding” the nation from “terrorism.” The State has long held the entire country to ransom by their arbitrarily usage of the term terror to suit their own racist agendas.

Enacted in 1979, countless campaigns for the ‘Repeal of the PTA’ by human rights groups both at home and internationally, including many Special Procedures of the UN Human Rights System, the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Frank La Rue[5] and treaty body Committees, have been to no avail. Now more than two years since the conclusion of the war in 2009, the PTA and its trusty side-kick the ER[6] continues to be meted out liberally to “dissenters” across the country.

The PTA is not only in violation of one specific fundamental human right, but rather, numerous rights, including the right to live free of torture, free of arbitrary arrest, detention or exile, to the freedom of expression, freedom of movement, and to equal protection under the law, as mentioned in the UDHR,[7] of which Sri Lanka is a signatory.

As of 2009, approximately 10,000 prisoners were held under the PTA in prisons island-wide, with numbers having increased significantly since then. (No official record on the exact numbers of detainees is available, due to the Government’s lack of transparency and outright denial of access to anyone to Government records.)[8]

Although the first to be detained under the PTA in 1979 were two Sinhalese activists from Kandy, (thus affirming the fears that the PTA would be misused to stifle dissidents,)[9] thereafter, it almost solely targeted Tamils arrested under “suspicion” of being affiliated to the LTTE.

The PTA allows for the arrest (without a warrant) and detention of a “suspect” for up to 72 hours prior to being produced before a Magistrate. The implementation of the PTA overrides the provisions of any other written law that protects the rights of detainees. The PTA permits the admission of confessions in evidence made to the Police while in custody, and protects all Government officials from prosecution against human rights abuses.

Many persons have been arrested under the PTA, and released without charge after extended periods of incarceration, e.g. Editor of the Tamil Newspaper Sudar Oli, N. Vithyatharan was arrested on February 26^th, 2009 and released 57 days later without charge[10].  Veteran Journalist, J.S. Tissainayagam was arrested by the TID on the 7^th of March 2008, indicted 5 months later under the PTA[11] for inciting communal violence through his writings and allegedly receiving money from the LTTE. On August 31^st, 2009 he was convicted of the charges by the Colombo High Court and sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. Having been released on bail on medical grounds, he was eventually given a full Presidential Pardon. Vettivel Jasikaran was arrested by the TID on the 6^th of March 2008, and was held in detention for nearly six months before being released without charge. He was indicted on the 27^th of August, 2008 for “inciting communal disharmony” by printing, publishing and distributing the magazine North Eastern Monthly. Valarmathi, his wife, was charged with aiding and abetting her husband. On the 29^th of January 2010, CID officers broke into the premises of the Lanka Irida newspaper and arrested its Chief Editor, Chandana Sirimalwatte. He was detained in CID custody for three weeks before the court ordered his release in February, citing lack of evidence.[12]

Even though the Government and pro-Government “terrorism experts” have repeatedly stated the necessity to perpetuate the PTA to maintain national security,[13] our Incumbent himself has clearly stated that “…the war against the terrorists is now over.”[14] If so, why then are we as a nation still so insecure?

Most importantly though, as the PTA has been a long standing means of “systematic” human rights abuse in Sri Lanka, it has always taken the back seat to the numerous other violations the state has been accused of over the decades. This is more the reason why the Government must abolish this draconian law with immediate effect, and ensure the security and welfare of all its people.

• A Kunanayakam by any other name?
• Students Missing In Jaffna
• Photos from Day 3 of NFF protest against UN in Colombo
• HAS MAHINDA RAJAPAKSA BEEN A TRAITOR TO SRI LANKA?
• Who Guards the Guards? – The Need to Move Swiftly on Removing the ER/PTA from the Sri Lankan Constitution

Image credit AP, via BBC News

“There are two mistakes one can make along the road to truth…not going all the way, and not starting.” – Lord Buddha

Authors note: When I was a teenager, I heard from a Sinhala brother that he constantly felt guilty for being unable to protect nearly 70 000-80 000 Sinhala youth who were killed in 1971 and 1989 by their own government in the name of ‘countering  insurgency’.

Now, approaching my tenth year of engagement in journalism and human rights activism, I am experiencing a similar feeling. When thousands of Tamil civilians were massacred under the banner of ‘defeating terrorism’, I – along with like-minded others –could not cease or control the causalities.  Since then, it has been my sole intent to do something constructive and seek justice for those who were victimized by the state system in Sri Lanka.

(An edited version of an article by Nirmanusan Balasundaram as first published in the UNESCO Chair & Institute of Comparative Human Rights publication entitled, International Leadership Programme: A Global Intergenerational Training Forum. This is an edited version. )

Introduction

The war in Sri Lanka came to an end in the Spring of 2009 with serious violations of International Humanitarian Law and gross violations of International Human Rights Law. Since then, the pressure from the international community is mounting on accountability issues and victimized Tamil community is seeking justice. However, the long standing impunity still defending the perpetrators and prevailing as a key obstacle to seek justice and genuine reconciliation in the island nation.  Now more than twenty-eight months since that war came to an end, there has still been no significant progress on a political solution. Instead, the GoSL rests on the laurels and the spoils that come with that military victory. Military triumph it seems is the only political solution they are willing to accept.

Background of the Conflict

An identity-based state patronage system, misrule, discrimination, oppression, exclusion and mismanagement of scarce natural resources, underdevelopment, inequality and grave human rights violations against the Tamil national minority comprise the root causes of the ethno-political conflict of Sri Lanka. The lack of moral obligation and responsibility of the successive governments of Sri Lanka steered the conflict towards a bloody war.

Unaccounted Causalities

The bloody war came to an end in May 2009. Just prior to the major offensive operations, the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) banned independent and international media from entering the war zone, and forced the UN and other international humanitarian organizations to leave the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) controlled areas. Then they set about systematically killing the messengers – the journalists, human rights activists and humanitarian workers, in order to hide the truth. Yet they could not stop the truth from coming out.

In his submission to the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, the Bishop of the Mannar Catholic Diocese, Rt. Rev. Dr. Rayappu Joseph, pointed out that, according to the Government Secretariats, the population in the Vanni region (Northern part of Sri Lanka) in early October 2008 was 429,059.

The total number of people, however, who emerged from the Vanni into government-controlled areas since then, according to UN OCHA 2009 statistics, is estimated to be 282,380, This means that over 146,679 people in the Vanni are not accounted for in post-war Sri Lanka.” [1]

The former UN spokesperson in Sri Lanka, Gordon Weiss stated: “About 300,000 civilians, plus the Tamil Tiger forces, were trapped in an area of territory about the size of Central Park in New York…They were within range of all the armaments that were being used, small and large, to smash the Tamil Tiger lines… Between 10,000 and 40,000 civilians died during the final desperate battles.”[2]

The GoSL, for their part, categorically denied the charges and claimed that they engaged in the world’s largest rescue operation to release the people from terror’s grip – a “zero-sum causality” operation. Two years after the brutal war ended, still the culture of impunity within the Sri Lankan armed forces prevails.

“In the absence of more vigorous investigations, prosecution and convictions, it is hard to see how this will come to an end, said United Nations former High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, during her 2007 visit to Sri Lanka.  “There is a disturbing lack of investigation that undermines the confidence in the institutions set up to protect human rights,” she continued, adding that Sri Lanka’s culture of “impunity” was a serious concern. [3]

Yet the GoSL continue their justification even after concrete evidence came to  light, including the televised video clip of execution of naked and blindfolded men, aired by British Channel 4 news.

“What is reflected in the extended video are crimes of the highest order — definitive war crimes,” said Christof Heyns, UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. “I believe that the prima facie case of serious international crimes has been made by the video that I’ve examined,” he told the UN Human Rights Council in May 2011.[4]

Failure and Mounting Pressure

The international community failed to prevent the brutal war and could not stop or control the causalities at the peak of the war in Sri Lanka. This is nothing less than an abysmal moral failure of the international community like genocide in Bosnia.

Louise Arbour, President & CEO of the International Crisis Group said, “It [the UN Human Rights Council] made no reference to the gross violations of human rights and international humanitarian law that had been perpetrated by the [Sri Lankan] government forces, rather it welcomed the government’s continued commitment to the promotion and protection of all human rights. Yet the last few months of the war saw several thousand civilians subjected to indiscriminate armed attacks by government forces in specially created ‘No Fire Zones’ in which they had sought protection and medical treatment.”  She further stated that during the peak of the war in 2009 “international protection was not forthcoming for the civilians of Sri Lanka, and accountability and justice were dispensed quite selectively.”[5]

There were few discussions at the UN Security Council on the occasion of intensified war, including applying Responsibility to Protect (R2P) mechanisms to protect civilians.  In both practice and reality, nothing was implemented to save those later slaughtered.

Nevertheless, the international community cannot continue to be silent or ignore the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Sri Lanka due to geo-politics trends and national interest. Following recent developments of mounting pressures from human rights defenders, international human rights institutions and international media, the UN Secretary General appointed a panel of experts (PoE) to advise him on accountability issues in Sri Lanka.

This panel found “credible allegations which, if proven, indicate that a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law were committed both by the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE, some of which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Government shelled on a large scale in three consecutive No Fire Zones, where it had encouraged the civilian population to concentrate, even after indicating that it would cease the use of heavy weapons. It shelled the United Nations hub, food distribution lines and near the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) ships that were coming to pick up the wounded and their relatives from the beaches. The Government systematically shelled hospitals on the frontlines. Despite grave danger in the conflict zone, the LTTE refused civilians permission to leave, using them as hostages. [6]

The Human Rights Commissioner refers to the PoE report as follows: It is incumbent on the Government to investigate these allegations and I also urge it to implement the measures recommended by the Panel. I fully support the recommendation to establish an international mechanism to monitor national investigations and undertake its own as necessary. It would be important for the Human Rights Council to reflect on the new information contained in this important report, in light of its previous consideration of Sri Lanka and efforts to combat impunity worldwide.”[7]

The Way Forward

The newly emerging international pressures on the GoSL, concerning accountability is creating a hope that justice cannot be deprived forever; in addition, paradigm shift in international attention on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka in comparison to 2009 is an indication that injustice cannot be sustained within the island nation. Also, considering the unfolding events in international relations, such as the recent Spring revolution in the Arab world and the arrest and extradition of alleged Serbian war criminal, Ratko Mladic, to the U.N. war crimes tribunal in the Hague where he will stand trial for genocide, is inspiring hope that undemocratic regimes and perpetrators cannot be sustained eternally. In Argentina, it took nearly three decades to bring perpetrators to justice, but finally it happened

Action for Positive Change 

Sri Lanka is a good example that political agendas are obstacles towards the pursuit of justice. Therefore, human rights and justice should be separated from political agendas. Even, it’s challenging, with patient needs to work hard, because reform is a process of change.  International human rights bodies constructive actions can abolish the existence and emergence of injustice, bad governance and disrespect of rule of law in countries like Sri Lanka. The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) should be a key institution to protect and promote human rights and ensure the delivery of justice for victims.  But it always isn’t the case. When the war came to an end, the UNHRC held a Special Session in May of 2009 on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and passed resolution—shockingly–in favour of GoSL. Worse, they welcomed the way the GoSL conducted the war. This resolution was adopted as twenty-nine UNHRC member countries voted in favour, six countries abstained, and thirteen countries voted against. It was passed despite the UN Secretary General’s Panel of Experts Report on accountability in Sri Lanka found credible allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity.  To ensure the integrity of the integrity of the UNHRC, its commitment for human rights values and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights, and other relevant human rights instruments, the resolution should be withdrawn.

Conclusion

The culture of high-level impunity and absence of accountability will not bring justice for the people who have been deprived by Sri Lanka’s system in the past.  But justice is precondition and a major step towards lasting peace in this island nation. Therefore, an era of impunity must be brought to an end without further delay. Perpetrators should be brought to justice, while the root causes of the problem and particularly grave human rights violations are also addressed. Globally known, Never Again must become a meaningful action in Sri Lanka, too rather than a repeated, attractive slogan.

[1] http://www.thesundayleader.lk/?p=31994

[2] http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2009/s2814960.htm

[3] http://www.chrdsrilanka.org/PAGES/Human%20Rights%20News3.html

[4] http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110530/ts_afp/srilankaunrestunrights_20110530163411

[5] http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/speeches/2011/the-rise-and-fall-of-international-human-rights.aspx

[6] http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf

[7] http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/PillayStatementHRC.pdf

• Silva’s Report, Role of International Community and Reconciliation in Sri Lanka
• Vaharai starves – International Community is Silent
• The Government must uphold the Rule of Law
• The leaked UN war crimes report: Key points and context
• Unending End Game