The photograph is iconic; Alavi Moulana, 83 years old and an SLFP veteran of 52 years, bending down and kissing the hand of President Mahinda Rajapaksa.

That picture is revelatory of the current Lankan reality at multiple levels. It shows what citizens have to do if they are to prosper under Rajapaksa Rule. It shows what SLFPers have to do if they want are to get ahead in a Rajapaksa-party. It shows what minorities have to do if they are to survive in a Rajapaksa country.

The Rajapaksas believe that by defeating the LTTE they won the right to do to and with Sri Lanka what they please.

The nature of the war cannot but have a bearing on the nature of the peace that follows, especially if the peace-builders are the same ones who won the war.

Lankan peace is a peace of absences. For Northern/Eastern Tamils it is a peace sans normalcy; they eke out a humiliated and right-less existence, under a de facto military occupation. For the Muslims it is a peace sans security; they live with fear not knowing when – and why – the next attack on their community would come. For the Sinhalese it is a peace sans a peace-dividend; their economic woes are exacerbating. All are being deprived of their political rights and democratic freedoms; all are being compelled to live in a land where the law of the rulers has supplanted the rule of law. The main difference is that many Sinhalese still retain a sliver of hope of a better future; most Tamils probably never had any while most Muslims seem to be losing theirs.

The Rajapaksas have redefined politics as the continuation of war by other means. Disbelieving in the existence of an ethnic problem, they are not interested in implementing a political solution. For them the ‘Northern problem’ was just a ‘terrorist problem’; the terrorists are annihilated, ergo, there is no problem. Their approach to peace building is non-consensual and non-democratic. Minorities, as guests in a Sinhala-Buddhist country, are expected to accept their secondary status with good grace. Those who protest, peacefully and democratically, are treated as racists/traitors.

The Sinhala-Buddhists are expected to be content with their illusory sense of superiority over the minorities and accept the relentless economic-lashings as the price of Pax Sinhala. To take their mind off the absent peace-dividend and other discontents, they are being fed on a daily fare of threats and enemies. According to this racist/xenophobic narrative, though the Eelam War is won, the Tiger is undead, our enemies are legion and the barbarians are at the gate. We must be vigilant about such ‘snares’ as ‘human rights’ and ‘media freedom’.

When the President, himself, in his Victory-commemoration speech, castigates ‘human rights’, ‘media freedom’ and the ‘independence of the judiciary’ as ‘strategies tried out by these (external) forces to rule our Motherland’ , when he equates the protection of democracy and human rights with separatism and does so with a face contorted by anger, the future that is in the making becomes as unambiguous as cyanide.

Hate – and fear – has an indispensable place in this Sri Lanka.

Since peace it is not dependent on the freely given consent of the minorities, an omnipresent military is needed to underpin it; force is also necessary to keep the majority in check. The galloping militarization is thus another indispensable feature of this unequal, unjust and intolerant peace. Lankan militarization is a guided-militarization, a militarization in which the military is subordinate to the Ruling Siblings and functions as an instrument of familial rule. In return, the military is allowed to build its own economic/business empire. The latest step in this process is the creation of ‘army farmers’: “For the first time in military history, persons who were recruited to the Sri Lanka Army as farmers started their duty on the 12th of May” . These ‘militarised civilians’ are currently employed at the Kandakadu farm which the army took over from the LTTE. Will Navy-fishermen be next?

This militarization is as disastrous for the majority community as it is for the minorities, and not just for economic reasons. Even as 6,400 acres of Tamil-owned land in Valikamam North is being taken-over to build military cantonments, 1220 acres of Sinhala-owned land in Panama (Ampara district) is being acquired to build camps and hotels. In the confluence of these two acts of injustices, the right-less future which awaits the absolute majority of Lankans can be foreseen.

Enthroning Hate and Dishonour

Last week, the military commander of the Vanni district reminded the Tamil people of one of the most essential components of this peace – the criminalisation of mourning: “Any citizen has the right to commemorate their loved ones but no one can commemorate terrorists who were disloyal to the government. If persons are planning to remember LTTE members it is treason. We will arrest whoever is involved in this” .

It is one thing to prevent the commemoration of Vellupillai Pirapaharan and other Tiger-chieftains. It is quite another thing to ban hundreds of thousands of ordinary Tamil families from commemorating their loved ones. How would the Sinhala-South have reacted had the government/army imposed a similar ban after winning the Second Insurgency and arrested Sinhala families who mourned their JVP-dead? Would that have led to reconciliation or to greater hate?

Is a mother expected to stop loving her child simply because he/she was a Tiger? Does a parent, a spouse, a child, a sibling, a grandparent become a traitor because he/she weeps for a loved one who fought in the LTTE ranks? How can a human know peace, if he/she is not allowed to mourn a dead child or a parent or a sibling, or a spouse or a loved one? How can there be closure without mourning? How can there be forgetting without remembering?

What kind of peace is this? Perhaps the only kind of peace which can be created by a leadership which opposed the provision of a high nutrition biscuit to Tamil children in the war-zone (by the UNICEF) on the ground that it will be used by the LTTE.

In Sophocles’ Ajax, the eponymous Greek General turns traitor, plans to kill other Greek leaders and, in the end, takes his own life. The enraged Greek commanders order that the ‘traitor’ be denied an honourable burial. Odysseus opposes this order; asked by Agamemnon why he refuses to trample his hated enemy in death, he cautions against trampling ‘justice underfoot’ out of limitless hate and warns: “Delight not, son of Atreus, in gains which sully honour”.

That is Rajapaksa peace, a state poisoned by hate and sullied by dishonour. So ordinary Tamils are banned from mourning their dead; so Gen. Sarath Fonseka has no place in the victory-commemoration.

Imagine the peace Vellupillai Pirapaharan would have imposed on Tamils had he won the war.

The Rajapaksas are increasingly looking like the enemy they defeated. And the peace they are building is disturbingly like the peace the Tiger would have created, a peace sans justice or mercy, a dishonourable, pitiless, intolerant peace; a violent peace.

The body of the once elusive LTTE supremo Pirapaharan is carried by Sri Lanka’s troops at the end of the war in May 2009

remember all who lost their lives in it as recommended by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC). The end of the war has greatly improved the lives of people, as they no longer fear bombs and large scale loss of life as in the past. But the country has yet to deal with the collective grief that accompanies any civil conflict. The LLRC recommended that a separate event be set apart on National Day in which all those who lost their lives in the war would be remembered.

The National Peace Council regrets deeply that very important recommendations of the LLRC to heal wounds of war and win hearts and minds are not being followed for the second year in succession after the publication of the LLRC report. Instead the day the war ended will be celebrated by the government with military parades and a display of military hardware. There are posters claiming that it is the country’s Second Independence. However, this manner of celebrating the day as a Day of Victory will also bring painful memories to the country’s Tamil people. Many of them had relatives and friends who did not come out alive at the end of the war even though they were civilians.

The National Peace Council notes that the victory celebrations have been boycotted since their inception by the majority of the country’s elected Tamil political leadership and seen as yet another sign of the political insensitivity of governmental leaders to the sentiments of its multi-ethnic population. The whole nation needs to better understand the Tamil perspective, that they lost their material assets and families but gained nothing from the war victory. The areas where they lived are destroyed, and many of the population have yet to restore their lives.

The American Civil War (1861-65) was one of the most ferocious wars ever fought. The war produced a casualty toll of over 620,000 soldiers on both sides and 50,000 civilians. But President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed that it was a war of brother against brother. General Robert E Lee who led the Confederate armies surrendered and was treated with the utmost respect. There was a common cemetery for the war dead of both sides. The defeated Confederate soldiers were treated leniently. It was by conciliatory measures that Southern Confederate nationalism was overcome and the defeated State pledged allegiance to the Union. The conciliatory approach of the American government saw the achievement of the main war goals as realized in 1865, when each ex-rebel state repudiated secession and ratified the Thirteenth Amendment

Four years after the end of the war in Sri Lanka the political solution that the leaders of government promised during the time of the war has yet to materialize. The Northern Province, where the first gunshots of the war were fired and where the last of the rebel fighters fell, has still to enjoy the right of elected provincial governance even to as limited an extent as the other eight provinces do. A government ally has filed action in the Supreme Court calling on it to abolish the system of devolution of power for the entire country. This is not the way for reconciliation and for winning the ethnic minorities over to a Sri Lankan nationalism. It shows a lack of foresight that defines statesmanship. In this context, we call on the government to ensure that the promised Northern Provincial Council elections in September this year will take place.

The National Peace Council also calls on the entire national polity to recognize that although the civil war ended in 2009 the country has yet to find its path of reconciliation through an inclusive process of political negotiations and a sincere effort to heal the wounds of war. We believe that if the recommendations of the LLRC appointed by the President had been followed, the government could have changed course last year. Government leaders would have ceased to further engage in ethnic triumphalism and instead focused on commemorating all victims who lost their lives in the senseless conflict. They could have utilized the occasion of May 19 to resolve that never again would such bloodletting be permitted to take place. This would have been a commemoration that all Sri Lankans, respecting multi ethnicity, equal rights, and the safety and dignity of all people living on the island could have taken part in as a united Sri Lankan nation. Instead on the day that marked a watershed in the modern history of the country, people will be divided in their grief. There will be no collective remembrance of loss, but a reinforcement of the separation that has overshadowed the post-Independence era.

On May 19, even while giving thanks that there is no more war in our land, and blessing our country to have long lasting peace and reconciliation, religious leaders in the country can take the lead in remembering in silent thought or prayer in their temples, kovils, mosques and churches, all those who died in the conflict. We also call on all the people to light a lamp or candle or perform some other symbolic act with their families in their homes to remember all those who died during the course of the war. Perhaps where the government has failed civil society can make what effort it can to bind the people in their remembrance.

Governing Council

The National Peace Council is an independent and non partisan organisation that works towards a negotiated political solution to the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. It has a vision of a peaceful and prosperous Sri Lanka in which the freedom, human rights and democratic rights of all the communities are respected. The policy of the National Peace Council is determined by its Governing Council of 20 members who are drawn from diverse walks of life and belong to all the main ethnic and religious communities in the country.

I didn’t need a map to get there. Elmo had helpfully sent a Google Earth graphic together with the invitation. The location was St Sebastian’s College, Moratuwa, just off the road down which my maternal grandparents had lived. Captain Elmo Jayawardena, aviator, master mentor of pilots, award winning writer, is Moratuwa’s Hemingway or more accurately, the Hemingway that Moratuwa produced for Sri Lanka. This time it wasn’t about his books, though. The man does more than fly planes and write fiction. Thanks also perhaps to his amazing wife Dil, he also helps people, as the head of a charity known as CandleAid.

I had seen some of it on April 28th, when I was invited to speak at Peter’s College, Colombo, at the graduation of a group of students who had completed a course in the English language. I should say a large group of students, because my wife Sanja and I had expected a few dozen when we got there on a busy morning on our way for the anti-hate speech Rally for Unity opposite the Nelum Pokuna. Instead, one of the auditoriums at St Peter’s was full. The teachers that CandleAid had tapped for the course weren’t those who gave tuition in spoken English. One was a respected young academic and writer, Dr Viviemarie Vanderpooten. In my remarks I said that having lived as long as I have and having visited around thirty countries, I have concluded that the most significant difference in terms of life chances, is not that of poverty or the place you come from, but the dividing line between those who were proficient in an international language (or whose mother tongue was one such) and those who were not. CandleAid had opened up the doors of another destiny for a batch of youngsters and would continue to do so.

One might have thought that this was achievement enough for CandleAid, but to assume that is not to know Elmo and Dil Jayawardena (though one is never sure that their names should be listed in that sequence). Yesterday, Tuesday May 14th 2014, they, their organisers, partners, well-wishers and friends pulled off a miracle.

I do not use the term miracle loosely. When the event they had organised was over, the thought that rose into my head was of a paradigmatic miracle said to have been performed by Jesus, when he told Lazarus to take up his bed and walk. Of course Lazarus had died, which put the Nazarene carpenter some considerable altitude above the Moratuwite aviator. It had been proclaimed that Jesus would make the lame walk, the deaf hear and give eyesight to the blind and it was attested that Jesus had indeed done so during his ministry.

Cuba’s volunteer pedagogues not only teach literacy in many countries but their doctors perform restorative eye surgery for the poor. In a deed that will surely be blessed as a shining example of the humanistic and humanitarian ethics of the Cuban revolution – which should have been the ethics of socialism—Mario Teran, the Sergeant of the Bolivian Army who drunkenly, and on orders from those higher up, fired the bullets that murdered the captive Che Guevara, had his failing eyesight restored by Cuban doctors. Such ethics are sadly an exception as social systems go.

Here in Sri Lanka with its increasingly parasitic and predatory ethos, it is itself a miracle that anything remotely resembling that exercise would be organized by private citizens; by civil society volunteers.

What CandleAid did on May 14th at St Sebastian’s College was to teach disabled children, most significantly, visually impaired children, to swim. We saw it happen. At the heart of the thing, it was all about the children; dozens of them in clean uniforms escorted by their more fortunate peers; a young boy spoke at the podium of his gratitude for the chance of learning to swim and a young girl spoke in sign, excited at the prospect of competing and even winning at an event someday in the future.

And then the moment of the miracle, when they arrived in their swimming gear, and coached by a wonderful woman, slipped into the swimming pool and made their way across to the other side. It was as close as human beings can come to making a miracle happen.

The pool at St. Sebastian’s college was donated by CandleAid in the aftermath of the Tsunami, when it was discovered that most people drowned due to their inability to swim. In a programme named “Swim for Safety”, the brain child of yet another member of the Jayawardena family, Mevan, CandleAid has trained over 5000 young people to swim since they commenced the programme in 2007.

This year, the programme was extended to include visually, hearing and speech impaired children to swim, in a programme called DAS (Differently Abled Swimmers). This is what commenced on the 14th of May at the pool at St. Sebastian’s. Sameera de Silva, the 26 year old volunteer who runs the programme for CandleAid, had organised the event flawlessly. There were no politicians and no religious rituals. The short speech by the priest who is the school’s head, wasn’t the opening address of the evening.

The Chief Guest at the CandleAid event was the most distinguished of Sri Lankans alive today, Judge CG Weeramantry, whose immediately post-war advice that Sri Lanka’s victorious leadership be inspired by the sagacious generosity of spirit of the post-WWII Marshall Plan rather than that of the spitefulness of post-WW I Treaty of Versailles, was ignored (if it had ever been read), to our collective cost. His gracious and elegant wife Rosemary was, as Elmo reminded his listeners, from the neighbourhood, Uyana, Moratuwa. Dignified and yet deeply engaged, Judge Weeramantry said that what was fundamentally wrong with the world was that those who were more fortunate, better endowed, did not care, or care enough, or even if they did, did not do anything about, the less fortunate. He said that by its deeds, CandleAid had by contrast, lit a little candle that should shine throughout the world.

Of all the spectres the Rajapaksas fear, Oppositional-unity would arguably be the most terrifying.

The Rajapaksas began getting jittery when it became evident that the May 15th demonstration against the electricity hike would be supported

The Rajapaksa triumvirate

by both the UNP and the JVP. The usual bag of tricks was deployed: the shrill screams about undead-Tigers, incoherent rumblings about NGO-cum-international conspiracies; and a hastily organised counter-demonstration.

None of the ploys worked; the demonstration on the 15th was a success. If the UNP and the JVP continue their cooperation and the plantation workers join in, the token strike on May 21st too can become equally successful. And these twin successes might inject some much needed life into the Opposition and help inculcate the habit of cooperation in the oppositional ranks.

The Siblings would know that one demonstration and one token strike, however successful, is no threat to their power in the here and now. But the Rajapaksa project is an epochal one; therefore they regard even long term threats with a certain degree of immediacy and urgency.

A dispirited and a disunited opposition is a sine qua non for the continuance of Familial rule. If the Siblings look at this rare moment of oppositional unity and see in it a microcosm of a certain unhappy future, they would be correct.

In the coming days, the Rajapaksas will redouble their efforts to ensure that the token strike is a failure. They will try to induce oppositional disunity; they will use propaganda with a heavy hand and engage in targeted acts of repression. If the opposition can withstand all these, an important politico-psychological threshold would have been reached and breached.

There is a pithy Sinhala proverb which can be translated, inelegantly, as ‘one does not pluck a honeycomb just to lick one’s fingers’ – meaning when a man attempts a difficult/dangerous task, he does so in anticipation of ample reward. The LTTE took on the Lankan state not to create a Tamil Eelam but to create a Tiger Eelam. Similarly the Rajapaksas successfully took on the task of defeating the LTTE not to create a unitary Sri Lanka but to create a unitary Sri Lanka under Rajapaksa rule. Their plan was to defeat the Tigers militarily, without making any political concessions to the Tamils, thereby winning the eternal gratitude of the Sinhalese and, as a mark of that gratitude, their freely given consent for long term Familial Rule.

Economics is the serpent in this land the Rajapaksas promised to themselves.

The electricity hike is not the work of Treasury Secretary PB Jayasundara, Minister Pavithra Wanniarachchi or the Public Utilities Commission. The huge rates-hike obviously had Presidential approval; it was certainly motivated by the Rajapaksa need to extract the maximum from the public (it may also have been a conditionality imposed by the IMF for a new loan).

Clearly the regime thought that the opposition was too busy navel-gazing to take up this issue with the vigour it deserved; and that media/public attention could be diverted with artificial crises, such as the Muslim threat (including the unjust arrest of Azath Salley) and political pantomimes, such as the curious case of Duminda Silva.

Excess has become a Rajapaksa habit; indulgence a norm The electricity hike could have been handled with more finesse, but the Siblings have got away with so many economic hammer-blows they did not see any need to use a scalpel this time. That perhaps was their main miscalculation. The hike was so crudely gigantic, that it gave the lie to Rajapaksa rhetoric about developmental miracles in a way that no amount of oppositional propaganda could.

Unravelling Rajapaksa Lies

Lies and dissembling, false promises and mendacious declarations, illusions and delusions form the bedrock of Rajapaksa governance. The Siblings are master-illusionists; they excel at using words to create a totally unreal counter-reality. They did that when they called the Fourth Eelam War a ‘humanitarian operation with zero-civilian casualties’ and open prison camps ‘welfare centres’; they did it when they called the 18th Amendment a democratic measure, the Impeachment travesty a legal recourse and the arrest of Gen. Fonseka a patriotic act.

They are implementing a similar hoax when they hail their particular concoction of state-capitalism and economic neo-liberalism as ‘progressive economics’ and ‘pro-people development’. That lie has worked so far and will continue to work, in fits and starts, for a while more. But the electricity hike, thanks to its chainsaw-like effect, has caused an unprecedented dent in the hitherto smooth façade of Rajapaksa developmental-lies.

Given the nature of the Rajapaksa project, the Siblings have no choice but to continue to impose economic burdens on the masses. The huge outlay on defence must be maintained to ensure the survival of familial rule; megalomaniac projects must go ahead to satisfy the family’s desire for glory.

So the Rajapaksas have to continue their policy of tax and borrow, even at the cost of causing Southern discontent. Creating a fear psychosis by demonising minorities and equating legitimate, democratic and peaceful acts of opposition with treachery constitute their way out of this conundrum. They want an unthinking, uncritical mass; a stupid mass incapable of seeing the obvious and willing to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to facts.

Trying to ignore or gloss over facts in order to maintain the inviolability of a belief is a practice which is neither new nor uncommon. When the geo-centric model of universe pioneered by Ptolemy and embraced by the Catholic Church failed to fit in with the observable planetary movements, instead of ditching the model, the theory of epicycles was added to it, to bridge the gap between Biblical theory and cosmic reality.

So far the Sinhala South has opted to accept the Rajapaksa myth about a dawning developmental miracle. But as shocks akin to – and worse than – the electricity hike accumulate it will be harder for the South to ignore the truth – living conditions cannot improve, so long as the rulers spend scarce resources on defence and on such wasteful projects as the Mattala airport or the Commonwealth Summit.

A Sinhala South capable of removing its ‘patriotic-blinkers’ and seeing the world for what it is would be the worst Rajapaksa nightmare. The Rajapaksa-days would be numbered if and when the Sinhala South asks itself whether it makes sense to spend the largest chunk of national income on defence, in the absence of a war; or why 40 million rupees should be spent annually on maintaining a category of individuals called ‘senior ministers’; or even ponder the connection between the dispossession of the Sinhala villages of Ampara and the Tamil villages of Jaffna.

Is having a mammoth cabinet in national interest? Is giving those innumerable ministers uncountable perks/privileges in national interest? Is allowing the powerful to ignore/break the law with impunity in public interest? Is wasting borrowed money on airports, harbours and other prestige projects which bring very little benefit to the county, economy or the people in national interest?

A people capable of seeing and hearing, questioning and understanding; a united opposition: for the Rajapaksas that would be hell, incarnate.

Hundreds of Tamil protesters were met with riot police and Sri Lankan security forces, at a demonstration on April 29, 2013 in Tellipalai against the Sri Lankan Army’s seizing of private land in Valikaamam North in Jaffna

process. The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission recommended the release back to their owners of private lands taken over for military purposes during the war. This was also the position taken by President Mahinda Rajapaksa when he made promises to the international community that the displaced people would be returned to their homes. But as recent events have shown, the acquisition of privately owned lands by the military had continued dealing another blow to the possibility of national reconciliation.

Despite protests by the affected people in the North it appears that the government is determined to go ahead with its plan to take over large extents of the land in the North for use by the security forces. Those who have been able to get inside some of these areas report that not even the foundations of the buildings remain on the land which is being prepared for new constructions. It is believed that at least some of this land will be utilized for military-run tourist hotels and economic enterprises. It may have been this reason that prompted the government to prevent the Leader of the Opposition from entering one such acquired area when he visited the North recently.

What is worthy of note is that the acquisition of land by the military that is taking place is not limited to the North and to land inhabited by Tamils. It is also taking place in other parts of the country. Recently there have been media reports about the acquisition of over 1000 acres of

Demonstrators stage a sit down protest in front of Tellipalai Divisional Secretariat, on April 29, 2013, but tensions rise as protesters breach police barricades and begin to march towards the entrance of the High Security Zone in an attempt to enter the Divisional Secretariat building in order to make their pleas for the military to leave their land. They are met with stiff police resistance.

land in the East in the traditional Sinhalese area of Panama which was a lush, serene and peaceful village on the sea coast when I last visited it during the time of the war, although vulnerable to LTTE attack. This area was the sanctuary of Sinhalese people who were forced out of their villages in the interior parts of the country during the Great Rebellion of 1818 due to the scorched earth policy of the British colonial rulers.

The Buddhist monk in the area was quoted in the media as saying that about three years ago, the people were chased away by armed men, and the following day the area was cordoned off by military personnel. But it is believed that the land has been taken over to construct a hotel complex although the military says it is for a military camp. Media reports claim that the permits from the departments of coast conservation, archaeology and forestry that are usually required prior to the construction of any building have not been obtained. In one media report a military spokesperson is quoted as saying “This is a Defence Ministry land and there is no necessity to obtain approval from any department to carry out any of our development work.”

Unexpected increase 

One of the unexpected post-war developments has been the increasing role of the military in the life of the country. There has been continued recruitment by the military, increase of the military budget and the entry of the military into commercial life. The explanation given by the government for increasing the size of the military machine rather than downsizing it has been that it is to preserve national security. This has made government actions in terms of increasing the role of the military in national life difficult to criticize. After a three decade long war, there is public deference to the imperatives of national security, or what is claimed to be national security.

However, there is another explanation for the increase in the numbers of the military, and its enhanced role, after the war. This has to do with the ideology of the government. It appears that the government is modeling the Sri Lankan state on the lines of states such as Pakistan, Myanmar and Indonesia, where the military has become embedded with the civilian authorities in governing the country. In these countries the military has become a part and parcel of civilian life, and not kept strictly separate from it, as in conventional democracies. In these countries the military runs big economic enterprises such as hotels, banks and travel companies.

Where the military gets involved in business, they can often outdo the private sector in providing goods and services to the people at a cheaper price. This was seen in Sri Lanka too during the time when vegetable prices soared. The military started to sell vegetables at cheaper prices.

Riot police and security forces stand at the ready to beat down demonstrators

Likewise the military run hotels, restaurants and travel services are competitively priced and seem to be efficiently run. But they contain a huge hidden subsidy. This is on account of the salaries and logistical costs that are paid separately to the military personnel from the military budget. These costs are not included in the cost of goods and services provided by the military. Therefore they can be provided at cheaper rates to the consumers.

There is a further hidden cost of military involvement in civilian affairs which is why democratically governed countries keep the military strictly separate from civilian affairs. The military are disciplined to take orders from the top. They are not expected to question their superiors. But in democratic life, it is exactly the opposite that is expected to take place. It is the people who should be able to decide what they want. The democratically elected leaders are expected to listen to the people and implement their wishes, so long as they conform to principles of human rights and respect for democratic values.

DEMOCRATIC COST

The reported statement of the military spokesperson who said that lands taken over by the Defense Ministry do not require going through the approval process of other government departments shows the limited and sometimes one-track focus of military thinking. They tend to see security issues in primarily physical and military terms. But security has also got other dimensions, such as human security, food security, environmental security and also the need to preserve historical and archaeological sites. Good governance requires the ability to see the larger picture in a holistic manner and how the different aspects of life interact with one another.

It is significant that the government’s decision to suddenly acquire large extents of land in the North has been taken prior to the establishment of a legitimate and popularly elected civilian administration for the formerly war-stricken Northern Province. Those decisions that severely affect the lives of large numbers of people would more appropriately be taken in consultation with the elected Provincial Council after it is

Pictures speak a thousand words!

constituted. The general practice in the country has been that when the government wishes to take over large tracts of land for a public purpose it discusses this matter with the affected population and with their political representatives, and gives the necessary time for legal objections to be made through the judiciary.

In Jaffna in the North more than 2000 persons who owned land are ready to file petitions in the courts of law. There is a possibility that 5000 petitions may end up being filed in the courts. It is to be hoped that, as advocated by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, government policy will not substitute for recourse to courts of law where the affected people have proof of title, and even where they do not have this, the civilian arm of government has the duty to carefully check and reissue them with the rights to which they are entitled. This is a matter of national interest, as what happens in one part of the country will have its consequences on the other parts as well.

The military’s takeover of land is an expansion of the role of the military in the life of the Sri Lankan nation which will affect every one of its citizens, and not merely those who belong to the ethnic minorities. Especially in a country that is recovering from three decades of warfare and violence there can be no equality between those who have guns in their hands, and those who are unarmed. This is why the military – civilian relationship in governance is problematic and why the established democracies in the world keep them separate. This democratic process now appears to be overpowered, as in Panama in the East, where the local authorities are trying to accommodate the military’s take-over of the people’s lands.

Life of servitude

Condemned Had Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga removed Presidential term-limits, Mahinda Rajapaksa would not have become the President. If the Rajapaksa dynasty takes root, every non-Rajapaksa SLFP leader will be condemned to a life of servitude.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa (L) and his brother Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa: Contemplating their next big move?

The prospect of such a life-sentence of servility, not just to Mahinda Rajapaksa but to a host of other, major and minor, Rajapaksas, would dismay most SLFP leaders. Their dread of Rajapaksa vengeance would prevent them from voicing their discontent, but beneath this public show of quiescence, discontent will bubble. Nurturing and deploying this silent resentment is a sine-qua-non for any successful project of resisting Rajapaksa rule.

Young turks

The Siblings, when inveigling opposition members to defect, use cupidity as a key psychological-propellant. The opposition can use similar tactics to cause dismay and consternation in government ranks. A word-picture of an unending Rajapakse future, consisting of unquestioning obedience to every caprice of every Rajapaksa, in every possible sphere, should be drawn for the edification of SLFP seniors and potential Young Turks. Such tactics will not produce lightening results, but those seeds must be sown, if the SLFP is to be persuaded to rebel against the Rajapaksas, someday.

Patrimonial oligarchy

oFamilial Rule has a critical structural weakness; it is an edifice built on an extremely weak and severely circumscribed base. A patrimonial oligarchy serves the interests not of a large and a relatively varied community but of a small kinship-group. The stakeholder-base of such a rule is, by definition, numerically minute and non-representative. It is to make up for this ingrained – and potentially disastrous – weakness that political dynasty-builders manufacture primordial/ideological/psychological facades and buttresses.

Enemies and threats needed to maintain power

The Rajapaksas have chosen ‘Sinhala-Buddhist maximalism’ as their strategic buttress and their primary façade. So long as a majority of the Sinhala-Buddhist majority believe that Rajapaksa rule is beneficial for them, Rajapaksa rule will survive. But if economic woes continue to exacerbate (as they will), Sinhala-Buddhist masses will gradually withdraw their consent for Rajapaksa Rule. In such a context, the Siblings will need enemies and threats to maintain their Sinhala-Buddhist support base. When necessary, these enemies/threats will be manufactured, even at the cost of pushing the country into a newer and a deadlier war – as is evident from the Rajapaksa-patronage of the BBS.

That is why there will never be real peace or genuine reconciliation in Sri Lanka, under the Rajapaksas rule.

Twisted versions of patriotism

The Siblings use their twisted versions of patriotism and national sovereignty to make the Sinhala people believe that they will stand or fall with Rajapaksa Rule. Without debunking this false equation, resistance to Familial Rule will be futile.

The Rajapaksas are bad for Sri Lanka; they are bad for the minorities; but they are worse for the Sinhalese, worst for Sinhala-Buddhists. The Rajapaksas are as disastrous for the Sinhalese as Vellupillai Pirapaharan was for the Tamils and an Islamic-fundamentalist leader would be for the Muslims.

Sinhala Buddhist masses

The Sinhala-Buddhist masses must be made to see this insalubrious reality. They must be made to understand that they will know neither safety nor wellbeing so long as the Rajapaksas rule. The nexus between high defence expenditure/megalomaniac projects and skyrocketing living costs must be explained; the manner in which the Siblings use national sovereignty to undermine the rights of the people and patriotism to suppress democratic dissent must be revealed. These exposes must happen primarily in Sinhala language and via popular media.

That is why the Siblings have accorded priority to the task of conditioning/controlling the Sinhala media, both print and electronic.

Circle must be squared

If this circle is not squared, the Rajapaksas will succeed in making the Sinhala South believe their diabolical lies about old Tamil enemies and new Muslim threats. If the old ethnic-overdetermination is replaced by a new ethno-religious overdetermination, resistance to Rajapaksa rule will fail.

Debunking Rajapaksa-Foundational Myths

Like other political dynasts, the Rajapaksas have created their own foundational myths. The attempt to draw a genealogical-link between the Rajapaksas and the Buddha via King Dutugemunu is just the comic-tip of a vast politico-ideological iceberg . Far deadlier is the equation of Rajapaksa needs/desires with the national good, Rajapaksa interests with national interests and Rajapaksa security with national security.

That is how airports sans planes and seaports sans ships are justified, attacks on the judiciary/media explained and the use of the PTA against democratic opponents/critics defended. When lies and delusions do not suffice, repression will be stepped up, as is evident from the planned re-enactment of the Libel and Slander Act and the creation of a new elite anti-riot squad .

Viable moderates must unite

Any viable opposition to the Rajapaksas must unite moderates of all ethnicities and religions and stripes into an alliance of moderates. A key use of the BBS and its anti-Muslim/minority propaganda is to make Sinhala-Buddhists fear such an alliance and to keep the Muslims out of it by blackmailing them with their lives, liberty and property. This, for instance, was the message sent by the arrest and release of Azath Salley.

Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims need each other to protect their basic human rights. The opposition, especially the JVP, must understand that in the current context, any downgrading of the 13th Amendment will only serve to enhance Rajapaksa power. If the 13th Amendment is killed, it will deal a lethal blow not just to minority rights but also to Lankan democracy, because the powers which are taken away from the provincial councils will be concentrated in Rajapaksa hands. Tamil parties too must understand that running to India is an exercise in futility ; only a Southern-Northern-Eastern unity can save the 13th Amendment.

No imjustice to irrelevant

Lankan opposition is too weak to launch a successful frontal political-assault on the Rajapaksas. Nor is the time right for such an assault. Resisting the Rajapaksas cannot/mustn’t be reduced to ejecting the Rajapaksas, immediately. Before that indispensable goal is reached, and in order to reach that indispensable goal, every Rajapaksa injustice and excess must be opposed and thwarted. What is necessary and possible is a network of struggles, a series of single issue campaigns with clear short-term goals. These can be used to inflict innumerable political-wounds on the Rajapaksa edifice, de-legitimising, undermining and weakening it, step by step.

The issues can vary from prices to the kidney disease-epidemic, from the attack on the rugby-referee to the destruction of Mattala-wild life, from the repression of Tamils and attacks on Muslims to the eviction of Sinhala farmers/fishermen/poor. No issue should be too small, no injustice too irrelevant, no victim too unimportant, no method too insignificant .

Minor victories can give new life to opposition

A series of minor victories can give the dispirited opposition a new lease of life and some badly-needed confidence.

Most of all, the Rajapaksa-juggernaut cannot be resisted unless the opposition discards ‘narcissism of small differences’ (Freud) and work together, when necessary.

Perhaps this process can begin by the UNP and the JVP cooperating with each other to make the protest on May 15th and the token strike on May 21st resounding successes.

– Tamara Kunanayakam, Sri Lanka’s representative at the UN Geneva, 2011-2012, in an interview on 17 March 2013

The resolution gives monitoring powers to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights – OHCHR. An external mechanism is mandated to monitor the Government of Sri Lanka.

With this resolution, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights – HCHR can insist that a team from her office be allowed into Sri Lanka.

The OHCHR has the right to have many human rights officers in Colombo, for monitoring future violations.

This resolution allows the HCHR to visit Sri Lanka with authority, not once, but as many times as she likes. Therefore, ironically, Sri Lanka’s fervent wish that she visit the country will be accomplished at the earliest. Though it will be to scrutinise Sri Lanka’s human Rights record – rather than bolster its human rights image, as the government had wanted.

The visit of the UN HCHR to Sri Lanka in the near future will be completely different to the visit made by her predecessor, Louis Arbour, which was in response to an invitation that was not backed by any UN resolution.

If Sri Lanka says to the HCHR that she cannot visit and monitor, this will be clearly interpreted as bad faith. The Office of the High Commissioner already has an officer in Colombo, and will send more people to monitor and is mandated to do so.

Now let me go into details of the latest resolution – A/HRC/CC/L.1,Rev1 on Sri Lanka.

The effects of this resolution can be underestimated if various factors are not properly analysed. There is no point, however understandable it might be, in mixing the demand for immediate fulfilment of political aspirations (as some Tamils are tending to do) with the resolution process in the Human Rights Council – HRC.

With 23 years of experience behind us, it is our duty to explain the depths of this resolution. If anyone still has doubts, they need only to look at the Sri Lankan’s government response to the resolution, which shows how worried and upset they are by it. To please their voters, of course, they make bold and defiant statements.

In the eyes of Sri Lanka

Rajapakse’s envoy to the HRC rejected the resolution outright, condemning it as “highly intrusive.” He claimed that the government had “rehabilitated 12,000” Tamil detainees and that the Northern Province had experienced 27 per cent economic growth last year.

The economic growth claim simply refers to construction of roads and bridges in the north built to attract investment and tourists. All those figures are subject to independent verification.

Who are the real beneficiaries of this construction work? Certainly not Tamils. It is all for Sinhalese businessmen and contractors who employ Sinhala workers. Under military occupation, most of the people who have been devastated by war are living in poverty in the North and East.

In reality, those who have been so-called ‘rehabilitated’ and others have been placed under constant monitoring by military intelligence. The number of ex-combatants released is exaggerated. The government does not have the actual figures.

Sri Lanka never uttered a word about those who surrendered to the security forces in May 2009. Thousands of youths and men surrendered, witnessed by their family members. But the government says that it does not have any information about them. The way 11-year-old Balachandran was brutally murdered, however, gives us a clue about the fate of others. It is strongly believed that under direct orders from the Secretary of Defence, they were all summarily executed.

Enough is enough. The HRC resolution is actively endorsed, guaranteed, by the international community. Let’s concentrate on the positive side of this resolution, rather than, in effect, joining hands with the Rajapaksa’s government by rejecting it.

High Commissioner for Human Rights

The report (A/HRC/22/38/Add.1) of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, on advice and technical assistance for Sri Lanka, dated 11 February 2013, was widely appreciated. But many never realized that this report was the outcome of the Resolution passed on Sri Lanka in March 2012. In other words, without that resolution, the HCHR wouldn’t have had the authority to issue a special report on Sri Lanka. This example shows how practical and far-reaching benefits can result from a resolution.

Of course, some people would like impractical issues to be included in the resolution in the UN Human Rights Council – HRC. As I said in the past, the HRC has its limitations. Of course, reference to International investigations can be included in the HRC resolution. The US and other supporting states are cautiously moving towards this. The US has already said that an ‘international investigation’ must be the next step.

However, under any circumstances, the demand for a referendum on Independence and the imposing of an economic embargo will not be included in a HRC resolution. The HRC is not the right forum for any country resolutions on these issues.

For these issues to be incorporated into a UN resolution, either the particular demands should be made to the UN General Assembly – UNGA or to the UN Security Council – UNSC in New York. It should be noted that the UNGA has 193 states and the UNSC has five permanent members with veto powers: China, Russia, France, UK and USA. This indicates the difficulty in materializing these demands.

Economic embargo

An economic embargo and a boycott of Sri Lankan products are two different things. For a long time, the boycott of Sri Lankan products has been a talk-show among Tamils. Regarding an economic embargo by the international community, we will have to wait until the UN enforces it. But if the will existed in the diaspora and amongst Tamils globally, Sri Lankan products can be successfully boycotted.

In 2005, in a public meeting in Strasbourg, France, I spoke about the boycott of Sri Lankan products. The media covered this speech widely. The following day, I was blamed and criticized by Tamil shop-keepers who asked me whether I would pay for the stock of Sri Lankan products lying in their stores. Knowingly or unknowingly, every member of the Tamil diaspora contributed to the Sri Lankan economy, and it’s prolonging and winning the war. Today things are going from bad to worse. If a person walks into any Tamil shop in any country, he/she can see that more than 50% of the items in those shops are from Sri Lanka. Who are the consumers of these items? Why are we demanding the UN to impose an economic embargo on Sri Lanka, and not doing what we can ourselves?

Recently I saw a news item that some activists went into a market in Canada, demanding that clothes made in Sri Lanka should not be sold. This may be right, but before going into the market, shouldn’t they have walked into Tamil shops in Canada and demanded that goods produced in Sri Lanka should not be sold?

Do the politicians who take the line of the Sri Lankan government on the UN resolution understand the value of the boycott of Sri Lankan products? Does the Tamil diaspora understand the pain, hardship, suffering of our fellow Tamils living in the North and East? If so, why are they pumping their money into the Sri Lankan economy?

Therefore, before we demand the United Nations impose an economic embargo on Sri Lanka, we need to put our own house in order. Otherwise, this will be seen as a silly demand, bullying the international community.

Here I would like to re-call Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent, civil disobedience and Swadeshi policy during the Indian Independence struggle. Mahatma Gandhi maintained the swadeshi policy, a boycott of goods made by the British. He wore the traditional Indian dress, woven with yarn, boycotting British textiles. During that period there was neither the United Nations nor any other international institution to enforce an economic embargo. Mahatma Gandhi’s policy played a part, along with crucial contribution of Subash Chandra Bose to the Independence of India.

Also we should take into account what happened during the apartheid regime in South Africa. A massive international campaign to boycott South African goods and events eventually played a significant role in bringing down apartheid and shaping political changes.

An interesting question is, why don’t Tamil shop-keepers in the West and the diaspora sell and consume good quality food items available from countries other than Sri Lanka? Why is it that food and other items in large quantities are imported from Sri Lanka?

On the other hand, many talk about Tamil refugees, victims abducted, raped and tortured by the Sri Lankan security forces, flocking into various countries. In the meantime, every day hundreds of Tamils from the diaspora visit Sri Lanka, using the Sri Lankan airline and giving much foreign exchange to Sri Lanka. Why can’t we implement a boycott which is fully within our control?

Today, Australia is not at all bothered about anything concerning the Tamils in Sri Lanka, because they were disturbed by the number of Tamil refugees reaching Australia by boat. Has Australia ever realized that the transporters of these refugees were none other than Rajapaksa’s family and friends?

India’s silence broken

After more than two decades of silence on Sri Lanka, the Indian permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva gave a forceful speech in the last session of the HRC. This was not a surprise to anyone. Since the end of the war, Sri Lanka had consistently duped everyone, including India.

On 21 March 2013, India’s permanent Representative Dilip Sinha said, “We reiterate our call for an independent and credible investigation into allegations of human rights violations and loss of civilian lives.”

Commenting on the need for political solutions he went on to say, “We note with concern the inadequate progress by Sri Lanka in fulfilling its commitment to this Council in 2009. Further, we call on Sri Lanka to move forward on its public commitments, including on the devolution of political authority through full implementation of the 13th Amendment and building upon it.”

“India has always been of the view that the end of the conflict in Sri Lanka provided a unique opportunity to pursue a lasting political settlement, acceptable to all communities in Sri Lanka, including the Tamils,” Sinha said.

“We call for effective and timely implementation of all the constructive recommendations contained in the LLRC report, including those pertaining to missing persons, detainees, disappearances and abductions, reduction of ‘high security zones’, return of private lands by the military and withdrawal of the security forces from the civilian domain in the Northern Province,” he stated.

“We urge Sri Lanka to take forward measures to ensure accountability. We expect these measures to be to the satisfaction of the international community,” the Indian Permanent Representative said.

“We encourage the Government of Sri Lanka to expedite the process of a broad-based, inclusive and meaningful reconciliation and political settlement that ensures that all communities live in dignity with equal rights and equal protection of the laws,” he said.

“As a neighbour with thousands of years of relations with Sri Lanka, we cannot remain untouched by developments in that country and will continue to remain engaged in this matter,” the Indian Permanent Representative said.

Has this speech been seen as a positive step by the Mickey mouse organisations of the diaspora?

Future sessions

The next (23rd) session of the HRC will start from 27 May and will continue until 14 June. As far as the question of Sri Lanka is concerned, this will be a session with a few interventions by NGOs and maybe by some states.

The next move will depend on the impending monitoring oral and written reports by the High Commissioner to the HRC during the 24th session next September and during the 25th session in March 2014.

The 24th session will start on 9 September and conclude on 27 September. The most import session will be 25th session in March 2014. Those who are calling for international investigation should continue their lobby.

We should keep in mind that in the 25th session there will be some new good and bad states. There is no need to worry about any new pro-Sri Lankan members in the HRC, because when the 1st resolution was passed on Sri Lanka, Champions of human wrongs – China, Cuba and Russia were all members.

The international community wrongly perceives that any government other than the present one in Sri Lanka may agree on accountability and reconciliation. This is wrong! Various successive Sri Lankan governments were responsible for a range of Commissions, but none found any justice for the victims. On some occasions, the commission reports were never even published. The International community should realise that the ethnic problem in Sri Lanka is more than 60 years old.

Sri Lanka’s delaying tactics, until either the pressure subsides or the group or individuals who give pressure are suspended or terminate their services should be taken into account by the international community.

The International Independent Group of Eminent Persons – IIGEP and former High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louis Arbour are two good examples of this.

Now we understand that Sri Lanka is waiting for a change of government in US and the end of term of the present High Commissioner for Human Rights, which is due in September 2014.

Is this how any Sri Lanka government should see accountability and reconciliation after the island’s long bloody conflict?

As the HCHR visit to Sri Lanka is impending at any moment, it is the duty of members of civil society, to get in touch with her office in Geneva. An important task is to arrange for the victims to meet the High Commissioner during her visit.

R2P – Responsibility to Protect

R2P – Responsibility to Protect was originated by the Canadian government through the creation of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). This commission also included members from the UN General Assembly. It was the ICISS Report that set out the concept of “Responsibility to Protect”.

R2P triggered the military action to protect civilians. Darfur was the 1st case of R2P. Sudan demonstrated its inability to protect the people of Darfur.

Directly or indirectly, sooner or later, the resolution on Sri Lanka will be connected to R2P. This is the reason that Sri Lanka rejected this resolution through and through. Without realising this fact, some Tamils have objected to the resolution.

R2P is the newest international security and human rights norm to address the international community’s failure to prevent and stop genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

Under R2P, sovereignty no longer exclusively protects states from foreign interference.

It consists of three pillars:

1 – A state has a responsibility to protect is population.

2 – The international community has a responsibility to assist a particular state to fulfill its responsibility.

3 – If a state fails to protect its citizens, the international community has the responsibility to intervene

through economic sanction and as a last resort military intervention can be considered.

At the World Summit held in New York in 14 to 16 September 2005, member states included R2P in the outcome document (A/RES/60/1) in paragraphs 138, 139 and 140.

Responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity

138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity……………….

139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity…………..

140. We fully support the mission of the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide.

Hope this summary will give some knowledge regarding what happened in Mali, Cote d’Ivoire (Ivory coast), Libya and what is going to happen in Syria.

S. V. Kirubaharan

France

9 Mai 2013

Georg Forster (Works XVII)

A Presidential offspring hammers a referee, in full view of hundreds of spectators.

An Appeal Court Judge has a temper tantrum in an international airport and throws a water bottle at another Judge.

Fellow referees do nothing either to protect their colleague during the incident or to protest against it afterwards.

The Appeal Court judges have reportedly complained to the President, but nothing is likely to come out of it. The alleged tantrum-cum-bottle-thrower had been the District Judge of Tangalle from 1987-1990 and was appointed to the Appeal Court by none other than President Rajapaksa, in violation of the 17th Amendment .

Perhaps if the national media raised an outcry and society expressed its outrage, the President would have been compelled to do ‘something’. In the absence of any such reaction, it is easy for the President to do nothing.

Loutishness has become as much of a Lankan norm as injustice, abuse or corruption. Any Lankan – however non-political – can be victimised by a ruffian armed with impunity and cushioned by connections.

Rajapaksa rule is endangering Sri Lanka in far more ways than political or economic.

The arrest of Azath Salley under the PTA is symbolic of the political danger embodied in Rajapaksa rule; the electricity price hike is indicative of the economic damage the Siblings will do; the Mattala airport epitomises the environmental devastation of Familial rule.

But these may not be the deadliest Rajapaksa legacy.

In the same week that Rohitha Rajapaksa reportedly attacked a match-referee and Justice Sarath de Abrew reportedly created havoc in Bangalore air port, a student of a leading Colombo school allegedly stabbed to death a classmate. The murder happened during a discussion about organising a dansela for Wesak!

Someday, be it in years or decades, the Rajapaksas will exit the political stage, willingly or unwillingly. That their legacy will include an asphyxiated democracy, a ruined economy and ruptured institutions is indubitable. Will they also leave a society blinded by intolerance and addicted to violence?

Muammar Gaddafi’s long violent rule brutalised his subject-people; he taught them to discard pity and abandon decency; fear and self interest made them learn their lessons well. When the moment of liberation came, Libyans demonstrated that they had internalised too many of Gaddafi-habits. They killed opponents and dissenters and cheered as their former leader was dragged out from a drain and murdered.

When the military displayed the naked corpses of the Black Tigers who attacked the Saliyapura Air Force camp in October 2007, the South was outraged. That display of pity and decency was antithetical to the Rajapaksa project. In the next two years the regime made a successful effort to efface pity and outlaw decency.

During the penultimate stage of the war, some media outlets carried a picture of a Tamil family fleeing the war zone in a fruitless search for safety; an elderly man, a teenage girl and a young child (and a glimpse of a woman), sitting atop their pitiful belongings and holding their brown mongrel dog. That image should have invoked compassion in the South and would have just two years previously. Not any more; the Rajapaksa poison had seeped into Sinhala hearts and minds so deeply that pity (for the Tamil victims of war) had become synonymous with treachery and decency akin to a moral vice.

That odious morality the Rajapaksas taught and we of the South chose to learn did not die with the Tiger; it began to seep into the South and affect the way we look at everything, from anti-Muslim violence to child rape.

From being indifferent to the suffering of Tamils we have become indifferent to suffering of our fellow Sinhala-Buddhists.

For years after the victorious ending of the war, militarization is growing apace. This militarization goes hand in hand with a new commonsense which lauds power and strength and despises physical and politico-economic weakness. It has also rendered societally acceptable the zero-sum division of ‘us vs. them’. This intolerant perception, which equates difference with crime and dissent with enmity, has overstepped political boundaries into non-political spheres. According to this worldview, the one with whom we have a difference of opinion/problem becomes the ‘Other’ automatically; this ‘Other’ is always an enemy, out to undermine us in fundamental ways. This distorted logic justifies the use of violence as the first and only response in any situation, however petty, banal or personal. Arguments, discussions and debates become unnecessary; compromises are seen as betrayal. A no-holds barred total assault is enshrined as the only proper response to any problem.

This is the ideology the younger generation is made to imbibe. The young would see those with power taking the law into their hands; they would see Buddhist monks extol violence against the ‘Other’; they would hear words of pathological suspicion and hate.

With such a daily staple, how can they resist the plague bacilli of violent-intolerance?

Poisoning the Next Generation

Last September, a group of uniform-wearing students, led, abetted by a mob of parents, launched a violent attack on the incoming principal of the Vidyaloka Vidyalaya, Galle. Even police protection was of no avail; in the end the principal had to flee, to save himself.

This week, the students of that pre-eminent Sinhala-Buddhist seat of education, Ananda College, engaged in their own protest against their new principal. They contented themselves with shouting and lighting fire-crackers since the new principal had not arrived. What will happen when the new principal turns up? What will the teachers, the parents and the authorities do, in the face of this outbreak of hooliganism?

Violent intolerance is endemic in today’s Sri Lanka. Consequently it is but natural for the younger generation to regard intolerance as the moral-ethnical norm and violence as the most optimum way to settle any difference.

If this situation is not alleviated, Sri Lanka’s descent into criminality and ungovernability will be inevitable.

Sinhala-Buddhists, as the majority community, must take the lead in resisting the plague of violent intolerance. We must begin by abandoning our interminable search for ethno-religious enemies and political scapegoats. We must look inward; before we worry about other’s Sharia, we must take on our own Bodu Bala Sena.

When a discussion among a group of young Sinhala-Buddhist students about how Wesak should be celebrated ends in lethal violence, it says a lot about the abysmal level to which Sinhala-Buddhist society has descended.

The regime cannot resolve this issue; the Rajapaksas are a key part of the problem. They need to keep the plague bacilli alive in order to protect familial rule and dynastic succession. Preventive measures must be sought at societal level, as parents and teachers, religious leaders and opinion makers. But this effort will become an exercise in futility if we cannot let go the ‘us vs. them’ worldview. If we continue to cling to this ‘war mentality’, the day would not be far off when students assaulting teachers and children assaulting parents become as common as ethnic hatred or religious intolerance.

And our future will be even worse than our past, with or without the Rajapaksas.

Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?” - ‘The Second Coming’, WB Yeats (1919)

The Asath Sally saga

mask head of the Junior Vikatam

When Sri Lanka was nominated as host of the Non Aligned Conference and chair of the Non Aligned Movement under Madam Bandaranaike there wasn’t a single dissenting voice within that movement or anywhere in the world. As Sri Lanka plans to host the Commonwealth summit, there are. It is highly likely that there will be a global media and civil society campaign which causes considerable embarrassment to this country and further tarnishes its name, as the summit nears. This makes it incumbent upon Sri Lanka to demonstrate that it is indeed suitable beyond a reasonable doubt, in terms of its adherence to and practice of the democratic values, virtues and spirit of the Commonwealth to chair that organization for two years. It is against this backdrop that the Azath Salley saga unfolds.

Hard core state sallying forth to defend Salley arrest  

The state, or rather its hard-core and its propaganda apparatuses, has sallied forth to defend its conduct in the affair. By doing so many things stand revealed. Firstly, that the doctrine of pre-emptive hyper-securitisation has increasingly become the driving doctrine and dominant ideology of a democratic, pluralist state. Secondly that the arguments used to justify the handling of Azath Salley, reveal that the lessons of the recently ended protracted conflict have not been learned. Thirdly that those lessons which are being trotted out as deriving from the thirty years war, are completely at variance with the conclusions of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. Fourthly that the doctrine now enunciated is asymmetrical with the norms and practices of any civilised democracy, most especially those of the Commonwealth that we are gearing up to lead. Fifthly, that the arguments and doctrine now enunciated are portents of a dark and dysfunctional future.

Due process

The crucial argument of the state’s security bureaucracy is that Azath Salley issued a call to arms in the pages of a journal in Tamil Nadu. Let us take that head on. Unlike in the case of the mullah in the UK who was detained for incitement of violence, there is no incontrovertible video evidence. There is a statement which has since been contradicted. In the matter of a statement purported to have been made to a publication, a democratic state does not detain the individual for 90 days. It brings him or her in to record a statement. This is all the more so in the event of complaints made against a person. No one can be arrested in a democracy or any society in which the rule of law prevails, on the basis of either an alleged statement or a plethora of complaints. The norm is that he is requested to come down to the station for the purpose of questioning and the recording of a statement. The matter is then referred to the legal officers within the police or in the office of the attorney general who then determine whether there is a prima facie case to move to arrest and detain the individual. That’s called ‘due process’.

Alleged call to arms

Let us assume that Salley did make a statement of a dangerously provocative nature. Who knew about it? Only the readers of Junior Vikatan (and I must apologise for having erroneously identified its editor as Cho Ramaswamy). Who knows about his alleged call to arms now? The whole country, all the Muslims in it, and some part of the world. Who disseminated to all corners of the country with far more efficacy than the muezzin at Friday prayers? The Sri Lankan authorities who chose to detain him for it and blare it out for all to read and hear. If not for that miscalculation, Azath Sally’s alleged call to arms would have remained in the pages of a publication known only in parts of Tamil Nadu. I mean, it isn’t like he said it on NDTV.

Tamil nationalists

Beneath the logic of arresting Azath for his supposed statement to an obscure publication overseas, is another rationale. The argument seems to be that what was wrong in the past, what led to the war, is that the state was too soft; not fast and harsh enough. Evidently Prabhakaran should have been arrested for inciting violence. But Prabhakaran never made any public speeches until Sudumalai in 1987. He wasn’t inciting violence on public platforms. In fact he literally disrupted many such platforms on which Tamil nationalist politicians were campaigning. ‘Thambi’ was organising deep underground. The point I seek to make, is that it is dangerously counterproductive to confuse ‘above ground’ political activism and rhetorical militancy, with underground armed activity. The former is legitimate in a democracy. Erroneous – even dangerously radical– ideas spouted in the public domain have to be countered by correct ideas, not repression.

Hawks

A variation in the argument of the hawks, is that Tamil politicians should have been prevented from making provocative statements in decades past, and that had a policy of zero tolerance been embarked upon, there would have been no war. Now that is simplistic on several counts. The Tamil politicians were arrested and detained many times, and that didn’t prevent the armed conflict, not least because it isn’t such elements who practise armed struggle. Furthermore, anyone who pronounces on the politics of Tamil separatism must study its history and that history shows that the nationalist politicians were following the lead of and were propelled by the militant or radical youth movements from below, rather than the other way around. They were echoing the rhetoric from below and from the periphery of society. Intolerantly locking up the mainstream politicians would not have helped, and inasmuch as this was done, it only helped the radicalisation of the struggle.

Why amplify a squeak

Another point sought to be made by propagandists is that Salley is a mere City politico-businessman. If so, why treat him as a major threat to national security? Why assume that a call to arms by him, if he made one, will resonate within his community at all? Why not assume that no one will give a rodent’s rear end about his rousing ‘call’? Why amplify a squeak? Why turn him into an internationally known name? Does this sound logical?

Why no crackdown against vicious abuse hurled at Muslims?

If the counter-argument is that post-war peace must be preserved by a crackdown on hate speech and incitement, the obvious question arises as to why no such crackdown was launched against those who hurled vicious abuse and incited hatred against the Muslim community on public platforms and who discourse was followed – and arguably led to –acts of civic violence. Where was the vigilance, due diligence and doctrine of deterrence then? Azath Sally’s rhetorical flourish, in which he was never abusive towards the Sinhalese or Sinhala Buddhists as a community, if at all he indulged in it, came after, not before.

Must the Sri Lankan citizenry accept or acquiesce in the sacrifice, even in peacetime, of due process and civil liberties at the altar of an absolutist model of security?

May 7, 2013

We the undersigned, vehemently condemn the arrest and detention of Former Deputy Mayor and General Secretary of the

Azath Sally

National Unity Alliance (NUA), Azath Salley, by a team of officers from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and the Terrorism Investigation Department (TID), on Thursday, 2 May 2013 morning, and call for his immediate release in the absence of any demonstrable evidence.

Mr. Salley was arrested under the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and he has been placed under detention for further interrogation by the CID for 3 months under Section 2(1)(h) of the PTA. Section 2(1)(h) states that a person who has committed an offence under the PTA “….by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise causes or intends to cause commission of acts of violence or religious, racial or communal disharmony or feelings of ill-will or hostility between different communities or racial or religious groups…”

The unlawful arrest and detention of Mr. Salley is in a context where there have been increasing attacks and threats against minorities, a growing spate of incidents of religious intolerance, and clamping down of critics of the Government and dissent on the whole. Mr. Salley has been a vocal critic of the extremist group Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) and the anti–Muslim activities of the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU), and has been actively involved in efforts to initiate legal action against both groups. He has also promoted minorities to unite against the racist rhetoric and actions of such groups. In addition, Mr. Salley has been publicly critical of the indirect support given to these elements by the Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa.

On 24 April 2013, in an interview to the Tamil Nadu bi-weekly magazine “Junior Vikatan”, Mr. Salley is alleged to have said that “the Muslims too should launch an armed struggle against the state in the same manner in which Tamils conducted a campaign earlier…(and) that such a struggle would commence once necessary arms are procured.” Mr. Salley has later written to the magazine stating that he was misquoted. The magazine published a correction on 4 May 2013.

Mr. Salley has been on a fast since his arrest on 2 May in protest against his unjust arrest, and demanding his release. Since his arrest, he has been moved from the 4th Floor of the CID to the National Hospital as he had collapsed due to lack of food, water and medication. There are concerns his condition can deteriorate if not urgently addressed, as he is a diabetic and in need of medication. He was initially refused visitors, including visits from his immediate family and lawyers, and was placed under heavy police guard. On 5 May, regardless of medical concerns, Mr. Salley had been moved back to the 4th Floor of the CID.

Mr. Salley’s had to be carried to the meeting room on the 4th Floor to meet with his lawyer yesterday. On seeing the deterioration in his condition, his lawyer had insisted that authorities re-hospitalize him immediately.

We may not agree with all of Mr. Salley’s political positions, however we are deeply concerned with the treatment meted towards him which seems to be a result of his position against hate propaganda and opposition to extremist groups. Whilst we recognize the responsibility of the State to investigate hate speech and other actions aimed at inciting communal disharmony, we wish to highlight the lack of fair and due process on the part of the State in the unlawful arrest and detention of Mr. Salley. Given the context and the charges, it would seem that Mr. Salley’s charges are politically motivated.

We also note the speed with which the Government and State actors acted on the arrest of Mr. Salley based on a misquoted interview. This is in a context of an increasing number of instances of hate speech and violence in Sri Lanka, with evidence publicly available identifying the perpetrators. Unfortunately, such incidents have not been independently investigated and perpetrators brought to account. Sadly, this incident is yet another reminder that the Government has resorted to strong-arm tactics to silence and harass critics, while turning a blind eye when actual incidents of violence occur. It is of serious concern as to the reasons for this unlawful arrest and the detention of Mr. Salley, and it sends a chilling reminder to all critics of the Government of reprisals.

We, the undersigned call for his immediate release.

Signed by:

Clergy

1. Rt. Rev. Kumara Illangasinghe – Bishop Emeritus of Kurunagala, Anglican Church

2. Rev. Dr. Jayasiri Peiris

3. Rev. Fr. Jeyabalan Croos

4. Rev. Fr. Reid Shelton Fernando

5. Rev. Fr. Samuel J. Ponniah

6. Rev. Fr. Sarath Iddamalgoda

7. Rev. Fr. Sherard Jayawardane

8. Rev. Fr. Terrence Fernando

9. Rev. Jason J. Selvaraja – Senior Pastor, Assembly of God – Chavakachcheri

10. Rev. Sr. Deepa Fernando

Organizations

11. Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA)

12. Interfaith Cooperation Forum

13. Women’s Action Network

Individuals

14. A. Theva Rajan QSM – President, New Zealand Tamil Senior Citizens Association

15. Aaranya Rajasingam 16. Ahilan Kadirgamar

17. Aingkaran Kugathasan 18. Ainslie Joseph – Convenor, Christian Alliance for Social Action (CASA) 19. Amal de Chickera 20. Ameena Hussein 21. Ameer M Faaiz – Attorney-at-law 22. Anberiya Haniffa 23. Anushya Coomaraswamy 24. B. Gowthaman – Attorney-at-law 25. Balasingham Skanthakumar 26. Bhavani Fonseka 27. Bruce Van Voorhis 28. Chamindra Chathurinee 29. Chandra Jayaratne – Former Chairman, Ceylon Chamber of Commerce 30. Chandraguptha Thenuwara – Artist 31. Deanne Uyangoda 32. Deshini Liyanaarachchi

33. Dinidu de Alwis 34. Dilshy Banu 35. Dinesh D. Dodamgoda 36. Dr. Anita Nesiah 37. Dr. Lionel Bopage 38. Dr. P. Setunga 39. Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu 40. Emil van der Poorten – Retiree & Community Activist 41. Faiz-ur Rahman 42. Farzana Haniffa 43. Farzath Faiz 44. Fawwazah Muhammad 45. Mohamed Raffai Mohamed Fouzi 46. Hans Billimoria 47. Hameed Abdul Karim 48. Imran Mohamed Ali 49. Infiyaz Mohamed Ali 50. Iromi Perera 51. Jayanthi Gunewardena 52. Jehan Perera 53. Jensila Majeed 54. Juwairiya Mohideen 55. K.J. Brito Fernando – President, Families of the Disappeared 56. K.S. Ratnavale

57. Kumaravadivel Guruparan 58. Kumari Kumaragamage 59. Kumi Samuel 60. Kusal Perera 61. Lal Wijenayake – Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP) 62. Lasantha Rahunuge – Sri Lanka Working Journalists Association 63. Latheef Farook 64. Mahaluxumy Kurushanthan 65. Manjula Gajanayake 66. Marisa de Silva 67. Mano Ganesan – Leader, Democratic People’s Front (DPF) 68. Mathuri Thamilmaran 69. Megara Tegal 70. Melani Manel Perera – Journalist 71. Melisha Yapa 72. Mirak Raheem 73. Mohamed Hisham 74. Mohamed Shammas 75. Muhammad Nasir 76. Nazli Mohamed Ali 77. Nicola Perera 78. Nigel V. Nugawela 79. Nirmanusan Balasundaram – Independent Journalist/Human Rights Advocate 80. Nishan de Mel – Economist 81. Niyanthini Kadirgamar – Researcher

82. Nooranie Muthaliph 83. P.N. Singham 84. Paba Deshapriya 85. Prabu Deepan 86. Priya Thangarajah 87. Prof. Jayantha Seneviratne – University of Kelaniya 88. Prof. Kumar David 89. R. Cheran 90. R.M.B. Senanayake 91. Rajani Chandra 92. Rohan Salgadoe 93. Rosanna Flamer-Caldera 94. Ruki Fernando – Human Rights Activist 95. Sabra Zahid 96. Sampath Samarakoon 97. Sanjaya Senanayake 98. Sanoon Mohideen 99. Sarala Emmanuel 100. Selvi Sachithanandam – Chairperson, Poornam Foundation 101. Selvy Thiruchandran 102. Shamala Kumar – University of Peradeniya 103. Shanthi Sachithanandam 104. Shehan de Alwis 105. Shehan Shakoor 106. Shreen Saroor

107. Siritunga Jayasuriya – United Socialist Party 108. Srinath Perera – Attorney-at-law 109. Sumathy Sivamohan 110. Sunanda Deshapriya 111. Sunil Jayasekera – Free Media Movement 112. Sunil Wijesiriwardena 113. Suren D. Perera – Activist & Attorney-at-law 114. Thiruni Kelegama 115. Udaya Kalupathirana – INFORM Human Rights Documentation Centre 116. Uvais Mohamed Ali 117. Visaka Dharmadasa