In short all disappearances must be investigated. You cannot point to some
‘arranged-disappearances’ such as those of many LTTE cadres as reason for not
initiating inquiries into all disappearances.
You cannot say ‘they were terrorists’; even the disappearances of such
individuals should be investigated.
After the late Lalith Athulathmudali was killed in April 1993, many pointed fingers at the then president Ranasinghe Premadasa whose wrath the murdered man had earned by breaking away from the United National Party along with Gamini Dissanayake and others to form the Democratic United National Front (DUNF). President Premadasa vehemently denied involvement and publicly declared his innocence.
After the late Lalith Athulathmudali was killed in April 1993, many pointed fingers at the then president Ranasinghe Premadasa whose wrath the murdered man had earned by breaking away from the United National Party along with Gamini Dissanayake and others to form the Democratic United National Front (DUNF). President Premadasa vehemently denied involvement and publicly declared his innocence.
A commission was appointed by President Chandrika
Kumaratunga to probe the assassination as part of an election pledge, even
through investigations carried out by the Police and Scotland Yard had
concluded that Athulathmudali was killed by Appiah Balakrishnan aka Ragunathan,
allegedly an LTTE affiliate. That
findings of the commission implicated President Premadasa by the logic of
association. Later, these conclusions
were set aside in the Writ Application Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 1999 filed in the
Supreme Court by Sirisena Cooray, and former DIG Seneviratne.
Now, more than 23 years after Athulathmudali was
assassinated, his brother Dayantha, speaking the Lalith Athulathmudali Memorial
Lecture on May 9, 2016, has called for a fresh probe. Much has been written about these several
investigations and the entire affair has been shrouded by controversy and
intrigue, leaving the general public still in doubt as to the true identity of
the assassin and his paymaster. As such,
Dayantha Athulathmudali has all the right to demand a fresh probe.
Some might object pointing out to the date of the crime and
the length of time that has since passed.
However, if truth is the objective then time cannot be an
objection. This is exactly what’s wrong
with the various calls for probes regarding alleged war crimes. It is wrong to privilege a particular time
period, especially in a war that lasted close to three decades.
A death does not become a lesser death with the passing of
time. A crime remains a crime of the
same magnitude even a hundred years later.
Victims, similarly, are not lesser victims as others become victims of
similar atrocities. If closure for the
near and dear is what is sought, then it has to be ‘closure for all’ and not
‘closure for some’. Dayantha
Athulathmudali’s appeal, I believe, has helped emphasize this point with regard
to the pernicious nature of war crimes probes.
It does more.
For example, we periodically read missives from various
human rights outfits (with or without dubious agenda and appalling track
records with respect to selectivity and exaggeration) listing the names of
‘journalists’ who have ‘disappeared’.
Prageeth Ekneligoda is just one of them.
The adamant refusal of such do-gooders to explore the full identities of
these ‘journalists’ is troubling, to put it mildly. Journalists are no saints and a media
identification card is no license to violate the law. If a journalist is also a terrorist, he or
she should be described as such and not simply as ‘a journalist’. The issue here is that such refusal is an
obstacle when it comes to investigating wrongs done to real journalists.
This is not to say that any extra-judicial
killing (for example) should go un-investigated. That’s a different issue altogether. The relevance of the Athulathmudali case here
is the strange silence from most quarters about the attacks on two prominent
journalists: Upali Tennakoon (Editor-in-Chief, ‘Rivira’) and Keith Noyhr
(Associate Editor, ‘The Nation’). The
former was attacked and sustained stab injuries. He survived and eventually
left the country. The latter was
abducted and assaulted. He may very well
have been killed had not his ‘disappearance’ been reported early and his
friends moved in quickly and effectively to mobilize all possible resources to
find him. His abductors let him go. Keith also left the country.
Noyhr was abducted in May 2008. Tennekoon was attacked in January 2009. That they are still alive is irrelevant to
the fact of investigation. Their
assailants are still at large in the eyes of the law. Almost everyone seems to
have forgotten that the Lalith Athulathmudali assassination case has not been
closed. Some people thought fit to exhume Wasim Thajudeen (a rugby player, not
a journalist). Others are determined to find the fate of Ekneligoda (whose
journalistic credentials are thin but who has a fat CV in terms of being
involved in various rackets). The point
is that vocation does not matter; the fact of assault and/or murder does. The point is that time-elapsed is not a
factor in the decision to investigate to conclusion; investigation
matters.
In short all disappearances must be investigated. You cannot point to some
‘arranged-disappearances’ such as those of many LTTE cadres as reason for not
initiating inquiries into all disappearances.
You cannot say ‘they were terrorists’; even the disappearances of such
individuals should be investigated. What
is suspicious in all this is the selectivity in action and non-action as well
as the ‘heart-rending’ cries of those seeking justice for the abducted,
assaulted and disappeared.
Keith Noyhr and Upali Tennakoon are two names that have been
conveniently (shall we say?) absented from the violence-discourse in recent
years. Just like Lalith
Athulathmudali.
The question is simple:
why? We have a government whose movers
and shakers have shouted themselves hoarse on the subject of human rights, law
and order, investigations into allegations of abuse and so on.
There’s been enough screaming. Let’s see some action. The demand is not for relevant authorities to
drop all cases and pick up the files on Athulathmudali, Noyhr and Tennekoon
only. All files need to be
re-opened. These ones cannot be let
un-opened.
This article was published in the Daily Mirror (May 12, 2016).
1 comments:
The fundamental right to freedom of expression has been systematically filtered by major media businessmen through suppression and intimidation. Dissent is deliberately stifled as “terrorism” or branded as an “anti-national activity”. Many that are taking action to uphold the rights of citizens like Nagananda and others in society at large have been co-opted or subverted. A productive and calm Parliament session is the least that politicians owe to the people who have to wake up daily to some scam or horrific deal of self-enrichment. A administration of Rule of law one day gives people an infinite sense of reassurance.
Post a Comment