The original intended audience was the TSA – if you see my first comment, I was offering a potential measuring stick from international law to evaluate the questionnaire.

The message for the general public and the end goal I would say (everyone would say?) is reconciliation, which I think means some acknowledgement that the government has not handled things perfectly with rehabilitation. You are right that the questionnaire is small by itself, but if its part of a bigger pattern of ex-cadres feeling like their rights were violated (the due process issues, interrogations in rehab, etc), then that claim should be discussed. There are still people in rehabilitation too – it’s not a totally dead issue.

Related to that story you posted above about the girl from Queens, I thought it was interesting about the media coverage of her story. I tried to figure out where she is now and saw she had a lot of news coverage – people held concerts to raise legal funds, lawyers volunteered their time, Congress people were discussing it. Same with that example someone else gave of the UK shooting from Brazil – there was a trial of the police about that. Or the news coverage/court case about Guantanamo complaints.

You ask for a way forward – I think that is part of it. Free media, open discussion, and accountability through the judiciary. If the general public sends the message that they care about how ex-cadres are /were treated (even on things that seem small like a questionnaire), I think it would help reconciliation. Saying that people like the TSA who question the rehabilitation process are just stirring up trouble probably does not.

Finally, you asked for a country that handled it better. I would submit South Africa (strong independent truth commission followed by amnesty), at least in terms of building inclusive politics and moving forward after an internal conflict that included terrorism.

I read that previous report from the The Social Architects.

The one that alleges that there is an on-going mass-scale ‘Sinhalization’ of ‘historically Tamil areas’. Maybe so. But the actual evidence provided can be described as anecdotal at best. Apparently, since the war ended, 165 Sinhalese families have settled in Vavuniya, and 45 families near the Trinco/Mullaitivu border.

Out of this molehill, a mountain is constructed. There are lengthy discourses on Sinhala-Buddhist extremism; the sinister intentions behind the Mahaweli project; the ‘renaming’ of Tamil places (the fact that many towns in Sri Lanka have different names in each language is ignored); and the wholesale ‘demolition’ of Hindu temples during the war, ostensibly by the Sri Lankan military (the LTTE is scarcely mentioned at all).

Perhaps most remarkably, the TSA claims that Ratnapura and Nuwara Eliya are ‘historically Tamil districts’.

The report is extravagantly footnoted, to affect the style of serious academic research. Yet the source cited most often is the TSA itself, especially when it comes to the most sensational of charges (e.g . the Sinhalese have killed 80,000 heads of Tamil-owned cattle in Amparai).

There may well be a policy of ‘Sinhalization’ being carried out by this government. But I can’t help thinking the TSA is actually much keener to establish certain other things:

1)That the North, the East and even the Hill Country are part of a historic Tamil homeland

2)That the Sinhalese and the Tamils cannot possibly co-exist amicably

3)That ANY GoSL/Sinhalese activity in the North, East and Hill Country must be regarded by the international community with the utmost suspicion, and should not receive any moral or material support whatsoever

Dear Neville

“1. I was careful enough not to say they have very cordial relations among various ethnicities in Malaysia – they have been avoiding pogroms”

There have been no pogroms because the Malaysian minorities have not challenged the system the way the Sri Lankan Tamils have. Do you think that the ethnic Malays would keep quiet if the Chinese or Indian Malaysians tried to separate Malaysia?

Would you support the implementation of a bhoomiputra policy in Sri Lanka to benefit the Sinhalese, the same way that it benefited the ethnic Malays?

“At independence, anyone forecasting the ethnic future of the two countries would have predicted far more difficulty for Malaysia than for Sri Lanka.”

The key difference that Horowitz missed is that unlike Sri Lanka, no Malaysian minority forms a majority in any part of that country. Hence, separatism has never been an issue in Malaysia (except for Singapore) the way it was in Sri Lanka.

I find that a lot of school students much more logical and open-minded. But the constant poisonous speeches by the politicians make many Sinhalese adults illogical to think that they could unleash pogroms on Tamils and keep them under army/navy boots and oppress them politically/socially/economically for more than 64 years and still expect them not to speak about federalism or secession.

I am not an expert on anything – I am a lifelong student.

1. I was careful enough not to say they have very cordial relations among various ethnicities in Malaysia – they have been avoiding pogroms

2. http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/csc/reports/possible.htm
”…. At independence, anyone forecasting the ethnic future of the two countries would have predicted far more difficulty for Malaysia than for Sri Lanka. Relative group proportions, conceptions of group legitimacy, recent political events, the relations of elites of the various groups, and the political culture of the two countries all suggested a Sri Lankan advantage. ….”

3. Sri Lanka is compared with Singapore when economicic developemnt is discussed.

Dear Neville,

“As far as ethnic relations are concerned, Sri Lanka had a much better start than Malaysia at the time of independence.”

I think you meant Singapore, the example most often brought up by those criticising Sri Lanka. As you do not appear to know the difference between Singapore and Malaysia, I doubt that you would be an expert on how Sri Lanka compares to other countries regarding ethnic minorities.

Here is Malaysia’s experience with ethnic politics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumiputera_Malaysia

“In the 1970s, the Malaysian government implemented policies which The Economist called “racially discriminatory” designed to favour bumiputras (including affirmative action in public education) to create opportunities, and to defuse inter-ethnic tensions following the extended violence against Chinese Malaysians in the 13 May Incident in 1969.[1] These policies have succeeded in creating a significant urban Malay middle class. They have been less effective in eradicating poverty among rural communities. Some analysts have noted a backlash of resentment from excluded groups, in particular the sizeable Chinese and Indian Malaysian minorities.”

“The concept of a bumiputra ethnic group in Malaysia was coined by activist Tunku Abdul Rahman. It recognized the “special position” of the Malays provided in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, in particular Article 153. But, the constitution does not use the term “bumiputra”; it defines only “Malay” and “indigenous peoples” (Article 160(2)),[2] “natives” of Sarawak (161A(6)(a)),[3] and “natives” of Sabah (Article 161A(6)(b)).[3]”

You responded to others here who had harsh words for you, but you did not respond to me. I had asked whether you could share with us a country that faced a similar situation as Sri Lanka and handled it better.

I think you (and TSA) are encountering negative reactions here because you aren’t really offering a way forward. You argue that the questionnaires were unjust (of all the injustices in Sri Lanka to address!) but offer no alternatives. The questionnaires are not something that can be undone. So why dwell on it (as opposed to other things that can be undone, such as the military occupation)? Who is your intended audience?

Also I think some people here have got the wrong idea about you. They do not know that you are a student (more or less, a female student!) still learning about the world and how it works.