The early versions of Udayasiri Wickramaratne’s celebrated theatrical piece ‘Suddek Oba Amathai (A white man addresses you) contained a short soliloquy, ‘Baya Vunu Minisek Oba Amathai
(A scared man addresses you).’ The man was essentially scared of two
things: a) that he would speak the truth even when he wanted to deceive,
and b) that he would do the right thing by mistake.
This
delightful piece came to mind when reading an exchange between Lord
Naseby and Lord Tariq Ahmad in the House of Lords a few weeks ago.
Naseby wanted the UK government to do two things: a) release to any
commission the un-redacted dispatches from the UK’s respected and
experienced military attaché, Colonel Gash, who was on the battlefield
every day from 1 January to 18 May 2009, proving beyond doubt in his
dispatches that there was no genocide, and b) persuade the United
Nations to remove the 20-year restriction on the source of the evidence
in the Darusman report of 2011.
We know that the Darusman report
was a sham, that it was illegally constituted and contained hilarious
errors. We know two that those who wanted a particular narrative to
stand did a lot of mutual back-scratching and cross quoting to give
credence to that laughable document where the claims were based on
anonymous testimony, mostly likely from highly dubious sources.
Come
2031, though, the truth will be out. We will know who said what. We
will be able to peruse the political track records of those who offered
testimony. Reliability will be assessed. My hunch is that the story
wouldn’t be too pretty and that it would embarrass the former UN
Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, the panelists Marzuki Darusman, Steven
R. Ratner and Yasmin Sooka, and all those who have since treated their
report as though they had faithfully transcribed the observations of
some omniscient entity.
Truth is important. Reconciliation is
important. These two words are tossed around freely, sometimes (from the
Sri Lankan side) grudgingly and from the side of Sri Lanka’s detractors
(USA and her minions including the UK and EU) in threatening tones.
But
when do they want the truth? If people want to swear by the Darusman
Report then they are honour-bound to open it to scrutiny. If they don’t
want sources disclosed then we need to ask, ‘what are you scared of?’
The truth? Perhaps!
It’s the same with the Gash dispatches.
Either he was being truthful or he was lying. If he was, for whatever
strange reason, dispatching falsehoods, then the relevant authorities
should call him out. If he was not, then is it that the UK is terrified
that his contentions would contradict those of the Darusman Panel?
Ahmad,
the Minister of State for the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and
the United Nations at the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development
Office, responded to Naseby. The response is cagey and thumb-twiddling.
‘I
cannot agree with all aspects of my noble friend’s questions because it
is very clear that the whole point of standing up a truth and
reconciliation commission in 2015 was that there was a real recognition,
even by the Sri Lankan Government of that time, of the importance of
bringing communities together to ensure that atrocities could be fully
investigated and, more importantly, perpetrators could be held to
account. That is why we have pursued the issue at the UN Human Rights
Council, which is the right approach. Of course, in time, there is a
need for domestic mechanisms, but the sad truth is that, since 2015,
despite successive changes of Government, we have seen little progress
with the truth and justice commission in Sri Lanka.'
He's stated
the obvious. No one disputes the importance of truth and reconciliation.
Perpetrators of any and all wrongdoing from Day One (that’s way back in
1975) should be held accountable. That would include, probably,
security forces of the Sri Lankan Government, the Indian Peace Keeping
Force, the LTTE and other Tamil militant groups such as the EPRLF,
PLOTE, EROS, EPDP and TELO. The aiders and abetters of terrorism, i.e.
those who provided funds, smuggled weapons and disseminated falsehoods,
and those who tried to bail out the LTTE’s military leadership including
Velupillai Prabhakaran at the last minute (that would be the USA) will
also received a shout in all probability. Ahmed doesn’t get into these
uncomfortable and possibly disconcerting details and one cannot fault
him; after all the ‘long’ and ‘comprehensive’ of the matter is a
touch-me-not of those targeting Sri Lanka.
But Ahmed is clearly
a not-so-artful dodger. Not a word about the Gash dispatches or the
sources Darusman and his team depended on. That’s what Naseby raised.
What’s he scared about? Is he terrified, on behalf of the UK Government,
that the truth would prove some people have blatantly lied?
Nevertheless,
he’s correct about the importance of bringing communities together.
That’s ‘reconciliation’ at some level. Well, at some level people have
come together. Elections have been regularly held. There’s commerce
among communities. There are no open or veiled hostilities any more. The
demand for a separate state has been unceremoniously abandoned. Heck,
the diehard Eelamists and their liberal backers in Colombo have not
uttered a word about provincial elections not being held. Provincial
Councils, Ahmed needs to know, were supposed to ‘resolve’ and
‘reconcile.’ The 13th Amendment which gave us these political entities,
was seen as a useful stop on the way to Eelam. It was forced down Sri
Lanka’s throat by Rajiv Gandhi who saw the move ‘as the beginning of the
Bhutanization of Sri Lanka.’
So when people talk of
‘resolution’ if they are adamant that it cannot stop short of wild
aspirations that have nothing to do with true grievances and completely
disregard historical, demographic and geographic realities, they just
cannot be serious. We don’t know what Ahmed was thinking. All we know is
that he is, as mentioned, an artful dodger, that he seems to be scared
of the truth. So when he or anyone else indulges in reconciliation-speak
while insisting that the truth be concealed, we cannot but conclude
that they are joking. Political clowns can entertain, but they do not
have the right to chair or wax eloquent on any process associated with
obtaining truth and reconciliation.
Well, we’ve been lectured
for more than a decade by people who are scared of the truth. That
notwithstanding, Sri Lanka certainly cannot afford, politically or
economically, to shy away from the truth. Sri Lanka cannot and certainly
shouldn’t submit to kangaroo courts of any kind such as have been
proposed by the likes of Ahmed. Sri Lanka has to set up a mechanism
peopled with men and women of impeccable integrity (unlike the members
of Ban Ki-moon’s clown-jury), mandated to obtain as comprehensive a
narrative as possible of all atrocities from 1975 to 2009.
In
all likelihood, a lot of bad mouths will get shut come 2031. In all
likelihood, the likes of Ahmed will fight tooth and nail to keep the
Gash dispatches hidden. There is more than one way to obtain the truth.
That’s a 'for Sri Lanka, with Sri Lanka and by Sri Lanka' matter, simply
because the key governments of foreign countries don’t seem to be
interested in the truth. [P.S. They never were and not just about Sri
Lanka: remember the narrative about weapons of mass destruction?]
[Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance columnist who can be reached at malindadocs@gmail.com]
0 comments:
Post a Comment