Grievances and resolution: the question of true dimensions

Grievances.  ‘Grievances?’ rather.  A word and a question.  The former implies a list or at least two issues that somehow cause distress.  The latter, the question that is, is something that has been customarily ignored or caused much shy-making, toe-watching and navel-gazing.  At best it prompts a highly emotion and even highly stylized narrative which is marked by marking out preserves (of grievances) where there are none and exaggerations where there is some degree of legitimacy to claim.  We are talking of ‘Tamil grievances,’ by the way.

Dr Nirmala Chandrahasan (LLB, LLM, PhD, Attorney-at-Law) in an article titled 'National Question and grievances faced by a minority’ (which she claims is a response to a piece I wrote, ‘Let’s make Sampanthan’s New Year wish come true’) does not indulge in such histrionics.  She offers some sober reflections on the issue, lists grievances and makes recommendations for their resolution.  They demand response.  

Nirmala begins by quoting the LLRC (Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission) report: ‘The Commission takes the view that the root cause of the ethnic conflict lies in the failure of successive governments to address the genuine grievances of the Tamil people (Chapter 9 para 184).'  

One doesn’t have to take the LLRC report as the last word on anything of course.  Those who could be called fellow-travelers in Nirmala’s pro-devolution caravan were shrill in their objections when the LLRC was set up.  The LLRC did not stick to mandate.  A minor misdemeanor, that.  I remember offering some observations on this a few years ago.   When the same shrill voices demanded that LLRC recommendations be implemented forthwith, I pointed out the following important ‘misses’ or ‘forgets’ in their pronouncements: “the LLRC was a far cry from a body enacted to draft a constitution. Secondly, some of the recommendations require constitutional amendment and even referenda. A third ‘forget’ can be added: the Government is not bound (as per the mandate-limitation) to implement all of the recommendations. There’s can-do and cannot-do in all this. There is, moreover, ‘done’, ‘doing’ and ‘forget it’ too. There is wanted-speed and doable-speed.” [For elaboration, please read, 'LLRC and Devolution: the politics of skipping caveats'].

The LLRC note on ‘root cause’ is incomplete.  It is correct that successive governments have been in part responsible on account of their inability to address the genuine grievances of the Tamil people, but that is not the only root cause.  Tamil chauvinism predates the much maligned ‘Sinhala Only’ legislation.  But let’s ignore all that.  The key terms here are ‘root causes’ and ‘genuine grievances’.  We’ll take up ‘root causes’ later; for now, the key descriptive of the word ‘grievances’ is the word ‘genuine’.  This has been ignored by those who have hurrahed the LLRC report.  

‘Genuine’ is about true dimensions — fact, not falsehood; history and not myth-models.  

Nirmala, having started with that LLRC quote appears to have forgotten that the issue is root causes in the main. She’s flagged eight points of contention: 1. Implementation of the Language Act, 2.Equal access to services and opportunities, 3. The principle of equality in the dispensation of justice, 4. Fair and just treatment of those detained, 5. Transitional justice, 6. Return to rightful owners of private properties secured by the state during the conflict (Points 4, 5 and 6 being essentially elaborations of Point 3), 7. Lack of state-sponsored economic development in the northern and eastern provinces, and 8. Non-implementation in full of the 13th Amendment.

Of these, Points 3-6 and 8 are not 'root causes'.  They are issues that have arisen long after tensions snowballed into a full blown armed conflict. Even Point 2, touches on language-related issues, i.e. Point 1.  They are certainly valid concerns and anything less than comprehensive addressing of the same cannot help the cause of reconciliation.  However, to flag these as valid or strong justification for ‘devolution’ is simplistic and demonstrates the pretty thin case for federalism championed by Tamil nationalists long before the LTTE came into the equation.  Indeed, it shows that the unadulterated chauvinism of the Tamil political leadership was as potent a poison as that of their Sinhala counterparts.  They’ve offered therefore a ‘Tamil counterpoint’ to ‘the non-addressing of grievances by successive governments’ by articulating ridiculous aspirations, confusing cause, effect and objective, and thereby feeding militancy among Tamil youth.  They’re as culpable as lax governments in the production of the LTTE and the terrible thirty years of conflict.  

Of course it is the state that has pick up after the fact.  Those who funded, armed and in other ways backed the LTTE can adopt and have adopted a hands-off policy in the matter of infrastructure development and other necessary action to rebuild conflict-ridden territories including rebuilding livelihoods.  It’s never enough, of course.  Charles Haviland, one time BBC correspondent in Colombo, once wrote about a ‘rehabilitated’ LTTE militant in Jaffna who was lamenting about being unemployed.  [For an elaboration of the kind of ailment that the likes of Haviland suffer, read 'Towards a post-complicit moment for those in pre-sleep slumber' and 'HRW and Brad Adams need to get some sleep']

Haviland's wail was rich.  Terrorists were offered skills that would help them earn an income, they were allowed to study and sit for examinations, they were released (if anyone wants to know what the countries that champion human rights and have berated Sri Lanka for being 'non-complient', all that is required is to whisper the name 'Guantanamo Bay' several times before and after meals) and the state is required to find them jobs as well?  It’s great if any state anywhere in the world can do a fraction of all this, but this was being demanded of Sri Lanka, a not yet middle-income country, that was in no position to eliminate unemployment and certainly not required to babysit ex-terrorists!   

The issue of justice (Points 3, 4 and 5) are valid. Of course one need not elaborate that injustice is not a badge that only Tamils have to wear.  In fact the entire justice system in its operation heavily favors the privileged.  Privilege is not the preserve of any particular community.   Nirmala’s point is valid when it comes to disappearances.  Proper investigation and follow-up action is necessary and sadly has been most manifest in absence.  

Just to get the ‘ethnic’ dimensions of the perspective right, the kind of justice that is sought was something that was not offered to victims of the 1988/89 insurrection either. And, in the larger narrative of ‘reconciliation’, it has to be remembered that it was not just the security forces that were engaged in strewing misery.  Who conscripted children?  Who killed members of rival Tamil political and military groups?  Were all members of the clergy, intellectuals, professional and ordinary people in the Tamil community killed by the security forces?  The LTTE’s track record is known in all this.  And it was not only ‘innocent Tamil civilians’ who were killed.  There were civilians of all communities who died, some were massacred, some villages were burnt and not all of them warrant the ‘Tamil’ marker.  Widowhood.  Becoming orphans.  Sinhalese know all this.  Muslims too.  The baby belongs to the state by default of course, but when we talk about it, we can’t talk of certain widows and not others, certain orphans and not others.  That’s a crime of selectivity that demands the descriptive 'pernicious'.

Does this absolve the state from finding out what happened to those who were taken into custody and then disappeared?  Can the state shove it all under a carpet called ‘forgive and forget’?  No.  Allegations have to be investigated.  It may take time, but it has to be done.  The LLRC is absolutely right on this.  Nirmala has picked the correct quote which bears re-telling: ‘The government is duty bound to direct the law enforcement officers to take immediate steps to ensure that these allegations are properly investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice. It will be recalled that this report came out quite a few years ago, but evidently these recommendations have fallen on deaf ears.’ 

It is a problem.  Not a root cause.  Perhaps a ‘cause’ for delay in reconciliation or even a cause for another round of violence, but certainly not a ‘root cause’ that warranted armed insurrection or even a demand for devolution.  It's none of that simply because of the error of chronology.

The same holds for Point 4, the indictment or release of those held in detention.  The release of over 90% of those taken into custody at the end of the conflict, many of them as mentioned above after being provided the opportunity to obtain marketable skills and useful qualifications (something unheard of in countries whose leaders regularly lambast Sri Lanka for ‘doing nothing’ by way of reconciliation), is not a valid excuse for denying justice to those who remain in custody.  Again, as pointed above, ‘not a root cause’ but a consequent whose genesis is not neat, not tidy and marked by multiple traces of 'ethnicity' if that's the preferred frame.  The state has to hold the baby, of course since no one is saying ‘I am an LTTE member’ these days, not even the LTTE’s conflict-time proxy, the TNA, which by saying ‘the LTTE is the sole representative of the Tamils’ covered itself with the Tiger flag.  The state has to hold the baby, yes, but this doesn’t mean that we say nothing of the baby’s parentage. But again, let us not forget, it’s not a ‘root cause’.

Point 6 is also an issue of justice.  However, demilitarization is a process and no one can say that this Government or the one before did nothing on this count.  Security is and always will be an issue, but 'return to normalcy' requires that properties secured for whatever reason be returned to rightful owners, subject of course to the often difficult process of establishing legality of claim.  Thorny, but addressable.  A must, in fact.  The fact remains, it is not a ‘root cause’.  Not a grievance that caused conflict of a military nature.  

The implementation of the Language Act has been slow.  Nirmala is correct.  Reasons include lack of resources and lack of political will.  There’s movement on both, however.  It is a grievance that needs to be rectified, the LLRC is correct.  Perhaps it is a root cause in generating a sense of being subject to discrimination, but whether the dimensions are significant enough to warrant insurrection is not clear.

Let us now take on Points 1 and 2

Point 2.  Equal access to services and opportunities.  Of course.  The Tamils were favored by the British in the public service and that edge did erode.  If that’s a grievance and therefore should be addressed by restoring the percentages we had in 1948 then the Sinhalese would be edged out for all time.  We can play the proportions game in many ways.  We call it multi-ethnic and multi-religious as though the population is equally divided among ethnicities and religious communities.  Not true, but it’s not said is it?  

Nirmala, however, is absolutely correct about the low representation of Tamils and Muslims in the armed forces and the Police.  This has to be rectified.  It will be slow, in the case of Tamils at least, for understandable reasons, but progress should be made.  The recruitment of a full complement of Tamil speaking officials as per the requirement of providing meaningful services to all citizens is a non-negotiable.  Here too, Nirmala is absolutely correct.  Point 2 is a demand and it outlines a genuine grievances.  A root cause?  Well, as much or as little as Point 1, as argued above.

As for job opportunities and the lack of effort by governments to set up factories in the conflict-ridden areas (the ‘development-deficit’ discussed in Point 7), one must understand that it was not possible for thirty years and little thanks to those who went around burning all state institutions, factories included.  People all over the country are struggling to make ends meets.  Farmers all over the country are suffering.  It’s not just Tamil farmers.  As for fisherfolk, there was a time when they couldn’t go out to sea and they can thank the LTTE for that!  

Governments can only do so much.  Much has been done, in particular by clearing the ground for development.  It is unfair to expect a country like Sri Lanka to turn a war-torn territory into a flourishing industrial zone overnight.  Nirmala talks about benefits of development not accruing to ordinary people, but then again when was that ever an objective of any government?  Development was never for Tamil ‘ordinary people’ and not for Sinhalese 'ordinary people’.  Nirmala should be commended for noting this.  

The one telling ‘deficit’ is a comprehensive irrigation program for the northern province that matches development in this sphere elsewhere.  The issue of a ‘River to Jaffna’ has been debated for a long time.  There are disputes over technical feasibility.  One must take into account that not all areas have the same complement of resources.  However, if devolution is about each devolved entity making do with what's contained in the relevant geographical boundaries, then the ‘Jaffna River’ is out.  In any event, the lack of development argument only alludes to something that few Tamil nationalists acknowledge or want anyone to mention: 

‘Development-lag is an issue that can gather greater currency if it is dressed in an ethnic garb’.  

Let’s consider devolution.  There’s nothing in Nirmala’s ‘Seven Point List of Grievances’ that makes a case for ‘devolution’.  Point seven, in fact, is dependent on the ‘center’ and not periphery.  It’s not a root cause or a grievance.  An aspiration, yes, but not a grievance.   The grievances, the genuine ones that is, call for action and resolution but nothing that can be pinned on devolution of power.  If there’s a wound in a foot, one doesn’t apply medicine on the neck.  Apples and oranges.  Call it whatever you will. The 13th Amendment is an aberration.  It presumes historicity and scientific validity of arbitrarily drawn lines and markers that neither the Tamils nor the Sinhalese had anything to do with.  The President himself has correctly pointed this out and the most ardent devolutionists have maintained a deafening silence on the matter.  

Nirmala asks if devolution is good for everyone, not just Tamils, never mind that devolution to the current ‘lines’ will concretize the myth-models of Tamil chauvinism.  She quotes Mahinda Rajapaksa on this, ‘people in their own localities should be able to guide their own destinies’.  This of course presupposed a neat and equal distribution of resources, but even if that were true, then the devolution logic demands that we move to village councils and not stop at provinces.  Nirmala says decentralization can do it but strangely does not apply that logic to the only two valid ‘issues’ she has flagged (Points 1 and 2).  

Many have misquoted or selectively quoted the LLRC report on the issue of devolution.  Nirmala is not an exception.   I strongly recommend a re-reading of the LLRC report with close examination of Section 9.231 which interjects 4 caveats to the principle of ‘devolution.

Section 9.231 of the LLRC report, which interjects 4 caveats to the principle of ‘devolution’:  (A) Devolution should essentially promote greater harmony and unity and not disharmony and disunity among the people of the country, (B) The focus should be to ensure that the people belonging to all communities are empowered at every level especially in all tiers of Government, (C) The democratic empowerment of the people should take place within the broader framework of the promotion and protection of human rights, and (D) In addressing the question of devolution two matters require the attention of the government: empowering the Local Government institutions to ensure greater peoples’ participation at the grass roots level, and lessons learnt from the shortcomings in the functioning of the Provincial Councils system be taken into account in devising an appropriate system of devolution that addresses the needs of the people, (and finally) it should at the same time provide for safeguarding the territorial integrity and unity of Sri Lanka whilst fostering its rich diversity.

Caveat A imposes the condition of ‘harmony’. Now if devolution uses the current provincial boundaries (randomly drawn, let us not forget), which constitute the basis for the (diminished) Eelamist demarcation, if the majority of Tamils people live outside the North and East (for example), devolution along these chauvinist lines powered by myth-models and exaggeration cannot inspire anything but suspicion and anxiety among the Sinhalese.

Caveat B speaks of empowerment and calls for much better governance and greater affirmation of citizenship-meaning.  Caveat C is about human rights. The upholding or subverting of human rights has nothing to do with the structure of the state (for example, whether it is a federal, unitary or other arrangement). So Caveat C, like Caveat B, is an add-on that is not devolution-specific.

Finally, Caveat D. It is about ‘building on what we have’, i.e. the local government institutions. It is about greater and meaningful participation. Such ‘democracy,’ again does not require devolution as per the 13th Amendment, 13 Plus posturing etc., but about scripting in checks and balances into the relevant articles of the constitution. Caveat D also unequivocally salutes the need to ‘provide for safeguarding the territorial integrity and unity of Sri Lanka whilst fostering its rich diversity’. The devolution debate has gone too far with taking as ‘fact’ and ‘legitimate’ the extrapolations of Tamil chauvinism for any power-devolution to established provincial lines not be seen as a threat to territorial integrity and unity.

A common and not very innocent ‘error’ is to confuse ‘devolution’ with ‘power sharing’.  Power sharing is about checks and balances that forbid the abuse of power, celebrate equality of opportunity in letter, spirit and practice, and about leveling playing fields to the extent possible in a capitalist economy.  Devolution is certainly not a necessary pre-condition; more robust legislation that insulates citizens from power-abuse is.  

Back to basics.  Root causes.  Trotting out issues produced by an armed conflict where the blame for the dismemberment, death, displacement and destruction cannot be placed at a single door is not an enumeration of ‘root causes’ but a description of what any conflict inevitably produces.  The only legitimate grievance Nirmala has expressed is about the language issue and here again it is more about sloth than anything else that one can complain about.  

‘Genuine,’ let me repeat, is about true dimensions — fact, not falsehood; history and not myth-models.  Genuine grievances are about true dimensions.  And resolution is about a solution that engages with grievance.  Devolution doesn’t arise from any of the genuine grievances Nirmala has outlined and certainly not the devolution to the Eelamist lines that are taken erroneously as a ‘goes without saying’ which, we all know, comes from a ‘comes without saying’ that has nothing to do with grievance.

Related Articles and videos:
My representations to the LLRC (along with responses to questions)
LLRC Proposals: let there be no foot-dragging 
Reconciliation and hallucination

*A shorter version of this article was published in the Daily Mirror on February 2, 2017.

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer. Email: malindasenevi@gmail.com.  Twitter: malindasene.  

Read more

Scuttling reconciliation from within

You can keep people out of close-door meetings, but you'll have to talk to them outside

Outside of constitutional reform, the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe Government’s ‘reconciliation’ process has now matured to a concrete formulation, namely the ‘Consultations Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms’ [‘Task Force’ from now on].  

This Task Force, appointed by the Prime Minister, recently opened online submissions ‘submissions in order to seek the views of stakeholders, experts and the general public on the design of the reconciliation mechanisms’. The reconciliation mechanisms envisaged include an Office of Missing Persons, a Truth, Reconciliation, Justice and Non-Recurrence Commission, an accountability mechanism and an Office of Reparations’.   These submissions, we are told, would complement ‘face-to-face consultations will take place in all districts of the Island via town-hall meetings, focus group discussions and structured interviews.’

Heady stuff, no doubt.  However, let us be charitable. Any exercise that seeks public views has to be applauded, except where the purpose is to place on already blueprinted measures a bold label, ‘Based on Public Views’.  We know this happens. 

There is a problem with the composition of the Task Force.  It is interesting that the composition-fixated lovelies who raised a hue and cry when the previous regime appointed the LLRC have not bothered to dissect this particular body in terms of representational value.  One on one, this Task Force has a massive credibility gap on account of one-sidedness as well as the credibility of some of its members who have failed the moral test of good-governance essentials such as transparency and accountability in financial dealings of organizations they run. 

Dayan Jayatilleka calls it ‘the Consultational Task Force of NGO types’.  He is correct.  He adds that the purpose is ‘to enforce the intrusive, US-driven Geneva Resolution under the monitoring of a UN expert’.  He is probably right, but let’s not jump to conclusions.  We can say this, though: a country on on

Verite Research found ‘only a small number of civil society organization implement good governance practices,’ and observed that ‘most CSOs either lack a clear distinction between the roles and responsibilities of the organisation’s management and board of directors, or disregard existing management structures in day-to-day operations’.  Even more damning is this: “the leadership of an organisation is often heavily concentrated in just a few individuals, limiting transparency and accountability”.  Those who know the history of the Task Force members and the organizations they work with/for, would say “you are talking about some of these people!”  Small wonder that the anti-LLRC voices have gone silent for most of them were ‘NGO types’.  And it is to the hands of such people that the task of ‘reconciliation’ has been passed. 

Add the fact that the lot represent a tiny sliver of the full spectrum of opinions on the issues pertaining to reconciliation and one has to conclude that the appointers are either lacking in wisdom (or even basic intelligence) or are as pernicious as the appointed in terms of intent and practices. 

Dayan has pointed out, correctly that the membership of the Task Force is heavily loaded in favour of ethnic minorities.  Sure, there are some ‘Sinhala’ names, but do the bodies they come with represent Sinhala sentiments on these issues? No.  They have by and large been in the forefront of federalist moves and have directly or indirectly operated as pawns of rabid Tamil extremism.  Dayan is thus justified in his warning, “Only the socially blind cannot read the signs of Sinhala angst; only the politically deaf do not hear the rumblings of Sinhala rage”.

It reminded me of something that happened around ten years ago.  There was (and perhaps it still exists) an outfit that came up with a project called ‘One Text Initiative’.  It was one of those many ‘peace-seeking projects,’ which I believe received funding from the USA.  The purpose was to get people of different political leanings to discuss and debate the much discussed and debated ‘ethnic’ with the objective of arriving at agreement.  The main political parties as well as organizations supporting particular ‘solutions’ were in the mix.  Among them were people who were openly or discreetly supporting the LTTE.  Missing here was Sinhala Opinion, not just the ‘extremists’ but the non-extremists too! 

A question was raised over this omission and the response from the movers and shakers was simple and simplistic: ‘we can’t move forward with them’.  

Reconciliation, then, was not the objective even then.  It was about imposing preferred political outcomes on the majority community.  The person who raised the question made a mild observation: ‘Well, you can leave them out of this exercise but sooner or later as we move ahead, you are going to meet them in the street!  What are you going to do then?  Isn’t it better to have them here and here them out and have them hear you out, than to face them out there?’ 

He was, naturally, overruled.  But what happened?  Those who were ‘left out’ came out.  Those who did the behind-closed-doors number, remained under self-enforced house-arrest. 

Today, they feel powerful. It’s not new.  They were as or indeed more powerful during Chandrika Kumaratunga presidency and from 2001-1004 when the UNP was in power (under a President largely approving of the Government’s ‘approach’ to the ‘ethnic issue’).   They haven’t changed, it seems.  They haven’t learnt.  They still concur, in effect, with those who tried to get ‘One Text Without the Sinhalese’. 

“But we are open to all suggestions from all communities!” did I hear one of the Task Force members cry out in indignation? Sure!  That’s what’s called ‘participatory development’.  It’s all about going through the motions so agenda can acquire legitimacy.  When people participate in an exercise run by shady characters with shady track records, who are pretty bad on accountability and transparency to boot, you don’t get reconciliation that’s worth anything.  You mess things up.

And remember, all this is happening in a context where a government confused about its identity is also clueless about handling the economy in the fact of a global financial crisis.  Hard times are ahead and this is something that the Government itself has acknowledged.  It will hit and the most his simply due to numerical strength will be the Sinhalese.   The perception will be that it is the Government that is doing the punching.  Remember also that there is a growing perception that this Government is patently anti-Sinhala and you can thank for NGO types, Mangala Samaraweera, Rajitha Senaratne, Chandrika Kumaratunga and UNP’s CFA with the LTTE for this. 

There’s the perception that ‘nothing has changed’ vis-à-vis all that was terribly wrong with the previous government.  Add to this the fact that ‘Incompetent’ is a tag the Government has earned for itself.  The UNP, just 7 months after winning an election has been forced to organize a ‘We support the Government’ demonstration.  This is the context in which moves such as the appointment of a Task Force of this nature feeds the Sinhala angst that Dayan speaks of.  It’s a short distance from there to ‘Sinhala rage’.  And this time around, the moderates who voted against Mahinda Rajapaksa (rather than voted for Maithripala Sirisena), will not come rushing to defend the Government.  Take away their support and you are talking of a pretty bad wicket. 

It all boils down to a simple question, assuming of course we are talking reconciliation and nothing else: ‘where do you want to talk with the Sinhalese, in the room sitting around a table or out there on the street?’ 

This article appeared in the Daily Mirror, March 18, 2016 under the column title 'Subterranean Transcript'.  Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer who can be reached at malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more

Reconciliation and hallucination

"LLRC representations and R.M.B. Senanayake’s hallucinations" is the title of an article I wrote for the Sunday Island in February 2011.  It was a response to what I thought was a wayward and malicious comment on my representations to the LLRC (Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission).  The mischief however is not specific to the preoccupations of Senanayake.  We have seen a lot of it and sure, from all sections of the spectrum pertaining to ethnic politics.  [See The text of my representations to the LLRC (and responses to questions). Related articles include 'LLRC Proposals: let there be no foot-dragging!' and 'The LLRC, devolution and the politics of skipping caveats'.  

A few weeks ago I made representations to the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), the transcript of which the Sunday Island graciously carried in the past three issues of the newspaper.  Subsequently some of the commissioners raised questions in the interest of covering more ground and obtaining clarification.  Transcripts of the question-answer session were not sent to the Sunday Island of course but the entire proceedings are available on youtube.  I do not assume that people who read the Sunday Island also checked out youtube.  I do expect however that any comment on whatever is there in the public domain sticks to what’s been said or implied. That’s basic courtesy.

It is against this backdrop that I find some comments made by R.M.B. Senanayake (‘Response to Malinda Seneviratne, January 29, 2011) surprising.  Senanayake (RMBS henceforth) concedes grudgingly (going by his word-choice) that the traditional homeland claim is indefensible.  He then goes off at a tangent.

He asks whether I think an individual Tamil family should be allowed to own and possess land they own.  In my submissions I never argued for the abolition of private property or for denying such rights to anyone, Tamil or otherwise. Where RMBS got this idea, I have no clue.  His subsequent questions regarding the enactment of laws to deny land ownership to Tamils do not arise as far as my submissions go.  If he needed to rant and rave about it he need not have dragged me into the picture.

He asks a series of questions about Army camps and lands formerly robbed and used by the LTTE.  They seem to imply insensitivity on the part of relevant state authorities about the plight of Tamil civilians. These are certainly important details but they were external to my submissions, which focused on resolving conflicting claims and the importance of regulatory mechanisms to ensure good governance, the rule of law and inter-communal harmony in ways that are sustainable. 

At no point did I assert or even imply that the ownership of lands and properties forcibly annexed by the LTTE should not revert back to the robbed.  There is nothing to indicate that the Government has no intention of facilitating such reversion.  One would expect however that there be system in the matter of submitting claim, reasonable evidence of ownership, for instance.  Wars, like tsunamis, take away a lot and while sympathy must abound, laxity in procedure is never warranted for it engenders other vexing problems.   

RMBS asks whether the Government should take over a ‘Tamil village’ (that’s a weak and careless categorization by the way for it implies a limiting of property rights to a particular community).  While noting that this man frequently got tongue-twisted in acknowledging the land-theft perpetrated by the LTTE, RMBS seems to have lost his address book.  Nowhere in my submissions did I argue for similar taking over villages.  I am yet to hear the Government issuing any statement that implies intention to secure real estate in this manner. 

The question of colonization/settlement was put to me by the Commission and framed in the thesis that every blade of grass, every grain of sand belongs to every citizen.  In my response I observed that while this is theoretically defensible, sensitivity should be exercised given histories when large scale relocations are planned and executed.  RMBS claims, ‘The Sinhalese nationalists wanted to deprive the Tamil majority in the north & east so as to undermine their claim to these lands as their homelands.’  Well, that claim is untenable in the first place given history, geography and demography (RMBS should unpack ‘North and East’ along these lines but he won’t for reasons not too hard to understand) and so indefensible that there is nothing to undermine!  In any event, even if there was such a move, I don’t see why RMBS drags me into it, for I have not argued for enforced mixing of population, not at the LLRC nor elsewhere. 

When he asks what the value of creating mixing populations is, he slips.  He is arguing for ethnic enclaves and the logic of that particular argument calls for enforced ‘enclaving’.  So we would have Sinhala Buddhist enclaves, Sinhala Christian ones, Tamil Hindu ones, Tamil Christian ones, Sinhal Govigama Buddhist ones, Sinhala Govigama Karawa ones, Sinhala Govigama Buddhist Professionals separated from Sinhala Buddhist Unskilled Labour and so on.  Life moves despite the fantasies of people like RMBS, fortunately. Today, more than half the Tamil population in the island lives outside the North and East and in reasonable harmony with other communities.  The fact is that provincial and other regional boundaries are porous.  Even villages are not exactly gated communities where outsiders don’t come in and from which residents never leave. 

All of a sudden, RMBS, a Sinhala Christian, believes he is the voice of Tamils and says that community fears ‘ethnic colonization’ and this fear can only be allayed by resettling IDPs in their original homes and villages.  Now which part of my submissions to the LLRC did I object to this kind of resettlement?  If someone is planning a different kind of resettlement pattern, then RMBS should take issue with that person.   

He is upset about some imagined plan (which I know nothing of and therefore had no reason to mention at the LLRC) to turn Tamils, Muslims and Christians into Sinhala Buddhists.  He must be hallucinating.  On the other hand, this same RMBS has openly defended unethical conversion of Buddhists and Hindus into Christians using the crazy logic of ‘free market of ideas’.  That logic can be applied in reverse as well.  If the free market of ideas (where someone uses whatever mechanisms at his/her disposal, including political sway) facilitates a Hindu or a Christian to convert to Buddhism, RMBS cannot object, unless of course he’s had a change of mind about conversion into Christianity.  I conclude that the man is so rabidly anti-Buddhist that he ties himself up in his own knots. 

All this is not surprising. RMBS has argued for asymmetrical devolution, with devolved police powers for the North and East but not for the rest of the country.  He has argued for demographical status-quo to be left alone, imagining that individuals and collectives can be frozen in geographies. He has vociferously argued for the constitutional splitting of sovereignty between the centre and the sub-units.  He has championed federalism and embedded in this project the legitimization of the traditional homelands claim.  He was and probably still is associated with the National Peace Council, an NGO notorious for numerous and substantial accommodations to the LTTE and a staunch backer of separatist ideologies and groups.  He was upset when the CFA was abrogated and issued dire projections about the future.  He used Eelam-speak liberally but perhaps more cutely than the likes of Jehan Perera, couching preferences in question rather than statement. 

Even in this comment, he quickly moves from mentioning my submissions (his rant has very little to do with what I told the commission) to raise the spectre of some Sinhala Buddhist Nationalist gonibilla.  On the one hand he wants ethnic enclaves, but he also wants one-ethnicity, one-vote and/or one-religion, one-vote type of secularism.  He just wants to undercut the Buddhists. This is very apparent when one considers his commentaries over the years.  He is ever ready to ridicule Buddhists and point out flaw in the Bikkhu, but is loathe to say anything critical of their Christian counterparts. 
While this country belongs to everyone, regardless of his/her religious convictions, RMBS would never venture into investigating who actually built this civilization, what the religious faiths of the key architects were, the faiths of which community that lost the most blood in defending this land and her people and so on.  He just wants ‘status quo’ without unpacking identity and without mentioning demographic breakdowns or referencing history.  He does not even want to acknowledge that resolving for ‘status-quo’ is a recipe for a need to resolve over and over again simply because status-quo is not something cast in stone.  

He can’t get enough of Buddhist bashing.  He is smart enough to tag ‘Sinhala’ to Buddhist so that his crass religious fundamentalism gets adequately camouflaged. It is not difficult to see why this Sinhala Christian seems so ready to vilify the Sinhalese and argue for the ceding of territories and for ‘enclaving’ to non-Sinhalese: when Sinhalese are robbed, by dint of numbers, Buddhists are the worst hit.  He would not argue for proselytizing zealots to stay within the precincts of their home-congregation. He should, following his own logic. 

Fortunately, the Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims and others as well as Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and Christians, in the main, are not fixated with the rubbish-notions that RMBS is fascinated with.  We have seen enough gonibillas to recognize the real item from the imagined.  There is room for everyone on this land, even RMBS.  He too serves a purpose.  He articulates the preposterous. As long as he rants and raves, those who to defer in favour of reason can take a cue about which direction they should avoid: the one he points to.  For this, we should salute this man, for he does this often enough, even when he hallucinates about what has been said and implied (as he has in the article referred to here). Thank you, Mr. Senanayake.        

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer who can be reached at malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more

The LLRC and devolution

The politics of skipping the caveats

When the Government proposed setting up a Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), there were howls of protests from the likes of Jehan Perera and Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu. Many of these I/NGO operators didn’t even appear before the LLRC perhaps fearing that the Commissioners would ask them to submit in full their various comments to the media, in the form of statement or political commentary. When the LLRC finally came out with a ‘Report’, they changed their tune. They said ‘Implement the LLRC Recommendation!’

They forgot, conveniently, that the LLRC had exceeded its mandate. That’s ok. A lot of people, after all, are happy to ‘exceed’. More importantly, they appear to be blissfully unaware of two things. Firstly, that the LLRC was a far cry from a body enacted to draft a constitution. Secondly, some of the recommendations require constitutional amendment and even referenda. A third ‘forget’ can be added: the Government is not bound (as per the mandate-limitation) to implement all of the recommendations. There’s can-do and cannot-do in all this. There is, moreover, ‘done’, ‘doing’ and ‘forget it’ too. There is wanted-speed and doable-speed.

 

What has excited these ladies and gentlemen, and of course some members of the Opposition, is the inclusion of the word ‘devolution’. True, it’s not ‘federalism’, that F-word dominating what passed for ‘political discourse’ when the reins of power were held by patently anti-Sinhala, anti-Buddhist and indeed pro-LTTE, pro-Eelam elements, but then again, in an LTTE-les Sri Lanka of ‘reduced circumstances’, if ‘straw’ was sought, ‘devolution’ was good enough a cling-on.

 

What is most interesting is the fact that true to form, they have taken the LLRC recommendation on devolution totally out of context and have never once referred to the relevant caveats. They would do well to read the points elaborated in Section 9.231 of the LLRC Report.

9.231 Devolution should necessarily be people-centric in nature and the following considerations should be borne in mind –

 

A. Devolution should essentially promote greater harmony and unity and not disharmony and disunity among the people of the country. The promotion of this ‘oneness’ and a common identity should be the principal aim of any form of devolution while protecting and appreciating rich diversity.

B. The focus should be to ensure that the people belonging to all communities are empowered at every level especially in all tiers of Government. Devolution of power should not privilege or disadvantage any ethnic community, and in this sense, should not be discriminatory or seen to be discriminatory by the people belonging to any ethnic community within the country.

C. The democratic empowerment of the people should take place within the broader framework of the promotion and protection of human rights which is a fundamental obligation of the elected government deriving from specific provisions of the Constitution and the Treaty obligations the country has voluntarily undertaken.

D. In addressing the question of devolution two matters require the attention of the government. Firstly, empowering the Local Government institutions to ensure greater peoples’ participation at the grass roots level. Secondly, it is also imperative that the lessons learnt from the shortcomings in the functioning of the Provincial Councils system be taken into account in devising an appropriate system of devolution that addresses the needs of the people. It should at the same time provide for safeguarding the territorial integrity and unity of Sri Lanka whilst fostering its rich diversity.

Let’s take these one by one. Caveat A imposes the condition of ‘harmony’. Now if devolution uses the current provincial boundaries (randomly drawn, let us not forget), which constitute the basis for the (diminished) Eelamist demarcation, if the majority of Tamils people live outside the North and East (for example), how on earth can devolution along these chauvinist lines powered by myth-models and exaggeration inspire anything but suspicion and anxiety among the Sinhalese? They would consider such devolution as ‘Threat to Existence’! There won’t be harmony. ‘Oneness’ would be wrecked.

Caveat B speaks of empowerment. This is good. It calls for much better governance and greater affirmation of citizenship-meaning. One does not need ‘devolution’ for this and if any community feels disadvantaged then all that needs to be remembered is that the felt ‘discrimination’ will continue to prevail in the other 7 provinces (where the majority of Tamils live). Devolution does not combat discrimination; better laws might. 

Caveat C is about human rights. The upholding or subverting of human rights has nothing to do with the structure of the state (for example, whether it is a federal, unitary or other arrangement). So Caveat C, like Caveat B, is an add-on that is not devolution-specific.

 

Finally, Caveat D. It is about ‘building on what we have’, i.e. the local government institutions. It is about greater and meaningful participation. Such ‘democracy,’ again does not require devolution as per the 13^th Amendment, 13 Plus posturing etc., but about scripting in checks and balances into the relevant articles of the constitution. Caveat D also unequivocally salutes the need to ‘provide for safeguarding the territorial integrity and unity of Sri Lanka whilst fostering its rich diversity’. The devolution debate has gone too far with taking as ‘fact’ and ‘legitimate’ the extrapolations of Tamil chauvinism for any power-devolution to established provincial lines not be seen as a threat to territorial integrity and unity.

 

Take all these caveats and power devolution to existing lines can be safely ruled out as ‘not in line with LLRC recommendations’. The only devolution that abides by these caveats, then, is a formulation that trashes current provincial boundaries and re-draws geographical units in more scientific (e.g. based on river-basins) ways with close attention to ensuring that no community, large or small, feels threatened.

 

Given all this, one thing is clear: those who have been waving the LLRC Report have just seen one word, devolution. That, or else, they are intellectually dishonest. Take your pick!

[Published in THE NATION, April 7, 2013]

Read more

Devolution talk and devolution talkers

Are you for 13, 13-minus or 13-plus, someone asked me.  Political circles are a-buzz with the 13^th, i.e. the Amendment thrust down the Sri Lankan polity by India in 1987, defended ferociously by Indophiles and non-Tiger separatists and happily used by politicians of all color intent on furthering careers and making bucks.  The pro-13^th commentators have all come out of the woodworks, as have those who opposed it and oppose devolution to boot. 

Debate on the matter is not new.  The present buzz follows a statement by Gotabhaya Rajapaksa advocating its repeal.  Context in brief is as follows: a) the 13^th is a part of the constitution, b) the President has at various times talked about devolution and pledged to go further, i.e. ’13 Plus’, c) it has no discernible connection with expressed grievances and makes no sense in terms of demographic, developmental and historical realities. 

And yet, those who are dismayed do make some interesting points.  Dharisha Bastians (‘From 13 Plus to 13 Minus’) argues that there is presidential double-speak.  Sumanasiri Liyanage (‘The UPFA government is heading for its first defeat in Parliament’) on the other hand is a victim of his own fantasies and notions of democracy predicated on faulty reading of conflict.  Laksiri Fernando (‘Gotabhaya’s talk about abolishing the 13^th Amendment’) is fascinated with status quo (right or wrong) and erroneous in the assertion that a repeal would necessarily wreck language rights. 

Tissa Vitharana’s outburst is perhaps the most clownish, for he sees ‘foreign conspiracy’ in moves to abolish the 13^th.  The biggest conspirator with respect to the 13^th was India and that’s certainly ‘foreign’, not to mention that the darlings of those intent on dragging his leader to the Haig are also ‘foreign’ or ‘foreign funded’ AND are staunch 12-Plus advocates (their backtracking from separatism to federalism to the 13th corresponds to the decline and fall of terrorism: no coincidence!). 

Fernando’s is nevertheless the most thoughtful of the responses.  He has detailed, for example, pre-13^th devolution talk.  He has also referred to the LLRC recommendations pertaining to devolution.  He has conjured a gonibilla factor: ‘Devolution and the 13th Amendment are the ‘trophies’ that the government has been showing the international community and the UN as indications of Sri Lanka’s commitment to resolve the ethnic question in the country. Backtracking on them would undoubtedly spell disaster for the country in the international sphere.’

Now the statements made on devolution from time to time does not necessarily make it logical, necessary, meaningful or sustainable.  These statements could be shot to pieces with the as-is situation of the 13th.  Fernando argues that as-is is mendable.  This is true except for the fact that devolution to provinces is antithetical to current economic theory in terms of resource endowment and allocation.  We have to keep in mind also that the X-Country success is not necessarily replicable in Country-Y.  

As for the ‘trophies’, Fernando misses the blatant truth that Sri Lanka’s detractors are as interested in ‘solutions’ as they are concerned about ‘democracy’ In Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or the Arctic.  Showcasing ‘achievement’ is simply not going to cut ice unless the relevant lines are toed. 
Grievances (and no one can deny that Tamils have them, as do various other segments of society, including Sinhalese) need to be resolved in different ways, especially through democratization. Here, Fernando’s comments on the 17^th and 18^th are extremely valid.  But we are not talking about ‘democratization’ here but ‘grievance-addressing’. 

What all these people forget is that the lines we are talking about here are white-drawn.  They have nothing to do with the longer history of the country (where demarcations – Ruhunu, Maya and Pihiti --made political but more than this geographical sense) or make sense in terms of present day prerogatives (economic hub, resource-complement, seaboard and so on).  Secondly, I am willing to wager that if asked to enumerate ‘grievances’ and tie each of them to territory-based ‘resolution’, they would be stumped, particularly given the fact that the majority of Tamils live outside the North and East. 

It is in this sense that the line Fernando quotes from the LLRC Report (‘appropriate system of devolution’) and the one he misses (‘acceptable to all’) need to be considered.  We can have devolution, not to resolve grievances that are not devolution-resolved but for better and more meaningful development.  That would necessitate re-demarcation of provincial boundary.  That’s the ’13 Plus’ we could aim for.  If there’s anything that thumbs a nose at reality, then it is better to scrap.  No 13, no 13 Plus, no 13 Minus.  Zero.  

 

Read more

Representations to the LLRC

~ Transcipt of evidence ~

 Lessons Learnt & Reconciliation Commission

Colombo, Sri Lanka

14th January 2011

 

         1.     2. 
   

         3.      4.  

PREAMBLE

My representations are framed by my understanding of the teaching of Siddhartha Gauthama, in particular the Charter on Free Inquiry, the Kalama Sutra.  As such I would hope that my submissions privilege reason over emotion and moreover call for the same privileging in the matter of learning lessons and imagining and implementing measures of reconciliation subject to the caveat that conclusions drawn are regularly verified in practice and adjusted in accordance to flaws discerned.  My appeal is further framed by the two principle drivers proposed by the Buddha: wisdom and compassion.

Reconciliation connotes a bridging of difference, a coming together.  It assumes therefore disjuncture, disunity, dissatisfaction and disagreement.  In the matter at hand the operative term would be ‘grievance’.  I am of the view that if grievance is perceived then it is real.  Grievances can be imagined of course, but to the extent that even such constructions factor into real life politics and provoke outcomes, they need to be treated as real for the aggrieved.  To the extent that such grievances are felt by a citizen then it is incumbent on the state to ensure that there is a mechanism to address these grievances, ascertain their true dimensions and deliver redress. 

Grievances, as articulated by Tamil representatives, self-appointed or otherwise, are broadly of two kinds: the traditional homeland claim and inequalities or anomalies pertaining to citizenship. 

TRADITIONAL HOMELAND CLAIM

History

With respect to the first, that of traditional homelands, I submit the following:

On February 14, 1766, Kirthi Sri Rajasinha, the King of the Kandyan Kingdom ceded a stretch of land in the Eastern part of the island, 10 miles in width from the coast to the Dutch East India Company.  The relevant maps are contained in Fr. S.G. Perera’s ‘The History of Ceylon’.  Prof. James Crawford refers to this treaty in his book ‘The creation of states in international law’ as one of the earliest such agreements recorded.  Prof. S Arasaratnam’s work on the Dutch Period refers to the details of this treaty and points to the issues pertaining to sovereignty.

The implication is that the Kandyan Kingdon had the right to cede that portion of land and that it continued to have sovereignty over the rest of the territory until the British obtained full control of the island in 1815. 

In 1766 therefore there was no question of sovereignty of any other polity and when the relinquished sovereignty was recovered and reasserted in 1948 by the State of Ceylon it naturally reverted to the political geography prior to the signing of that treaty. 

That treaty, moreover, is the genesis of the demographic realities of today’s Eastern Province where the bulk of the Tamil population lives on that 10 mile wide strip of coastal land.  Their ancestors were brought there by the Dutch to grow tobacco. Even today the majority of the Grama Niladhari divisions contain a Sinhala majority population. 

If the issue of homeland requires a longer throw back into the past, we can go to the 10^th Century, to the golden period of Chola expansion/invasion and the invasion of the island by Raja Raja Chola in the year 993.  Raja Raja Chola is also known as a builder of Hindu Temples.  The inscriptions at these places, according to the Archaeological Survey of India, resolve all doubts about traditional homelands and sovereignty.  The inscriptions at the temples in Tanjavur and Ukkal speak in glorifying vein that Raja Raja Chola conquered many countries, including one ‘Ila-mandalam’.  The inscription elaborates that this ‘was the country of the warlike Singalas’.  The plunder of wealth, one notes, is not from ‘Singalas’ who lived in ‘Ila-mandalam’ (which is a corruption of ‘Sihala’ or ‘Hela’) but the land of the ‘Singalas’, whether they were warlike or not being irrelevant to the issue. 

The archeological evidence shows that what is today called the Northern and Eastern Provinces were at one time the heartland of Buddhist civilization in the island.  Although there have been claims that these were the work of Tamil Buddhists, the thesis is not supported outside the rhetoric. 

I conclude that the claim is a fiction and one which was not only a key element of Tamil chauvinistic propaganda but a notion that stands squarely in opposition to reconciliation among communities. 

I submit however, that to the extent that history is version, there is a manifest need to have the issue cleared once and for all so that no doubts remain regarding the issue of sovereignty, ownership and claim. I propose that a historical audit be administered where all claimants are required to provide adequate substantiation divested of rhetoric and buttressed by independent authority and corroboration.  I submit that reconciliation requires a resolution of competing theories about exclusive rights to territories, while offering the caution that the notion of ethnic enclaves rebels against reconciliation and moreover is not supported by demographic and geographical realities. 

Devolution

In this regard, let me speak to the much-bandied term pertaining to ‘resolution’, i.e. devolution and within it in the 13^th Amendment to the Constitution. 

I submit that devolution as a constitutional and political mechanism for resolution makes sense only if history, geography, demography and economic/development prerogatives support it. I submit that devolution fails on all counts and as such the 13^th Amendment is an aberration for all these reasons, not to mention its illegality, its violation of democratic spirit in enactment and implementation and delivery failure. 

Even if ethnic enclaves do not exacerbate mutual suspicion among communities, they need to exist for devolution to sit in concord with reconciliation.  The demographic reality is that the majority of Tamils live outside the Northern and Eastern Provinces and this face cannot be attributed to the conflict alone.  The geographical reality includes the fact that in the Eastern Province that majority of the land area is inhabited by communities where the Sinhalese form the vast majority. 

Devolution, as per the 13^th Amendment, has been proven an economic and political failure, with two-thirds of monies allocated being spent on maintaining political structures with the benefits accruing in proportions horrendously skewed in favour of politicians. 

Devolution, moreover, rebels against current economic thinking on development. The unequal distribution of resources does not support development models that envisage multiple economic and commercial hubs. 

Devolution, if its logic is played out to the end, could for example result in vast regional anomalies, with the Western Province, for example objecting to surpluses generated therein being handed out to non-performing or less affluent provinces. 

Accordingly, I submit that the 13^th Amendment be reviewed in its entirety, especially on its predicate, that of claimed grievances.  If grievances pertaining to territory are found untenable then all territory-based proposals, I submit, are unscientific and therefore require rejection.  A pandering to political realities based on constructed mythologies can tide a country over in the short term but necessarily generate further rupture down the line.  Constitutional enactment should not be frivolous and should not pander to the whims of the most skillful rhetorician.  It should rather be sober, realistic, reference the past and look to the future.   

My contention is that the traditional homeland thesis is flawed and therefore resolution on relevant lines doomed to failure.  In the absence of a robust case for devolution, minority grievances must necessarily defer to the notion of citizenship. Let me therefore comment on the second element of the grievance thesis, that of citizenship anomalies.   

CITIZENSHIP ANOMALIES

I have no doubt in my mind that there have been numerous instances where minorities, particularly Tamils have suffered injustice and been at the wrong end of citizenship anomalies in terms of access to services, language-related obstacles and opportunities.  In many instances, constitutional provision has proven inadequate in resolving inequities.  Sloth, lack of political will, inefficiency, lack of resources including skilled personnel and also racism have resulted in ensuring that minorities are short-changed in many areas of social, economic and political life.   

Let me interject here the caveat that citizenship anomalies are not the preserve of any particular community.  Who after all talks of the grave injustices done to the Kandyan Peasantry and the related dispossessions?  Who talks of regional disparities and class-related anomalies?  Who talks about the injustices done to Buddhists and the vandalism, dispossession and cultural genocide they’ve been at the receiving end of?  The truth is that societies are not flat, they are made of hierarchies. There are institutional and processual factors that privilege some and marginalize or irrelevance large sections of the population.  It is true also that many of these anomalies are ethnic-free. 

On the other hand the existence of one disjuncture does not justify the perpetuation of another. We are talking about reconciliation here and it pertains principally to the issue of inter-ethnic harmony.  I submit that there are three areas that require urgent attention and relevant resolution: citizenship rights, security and sense of belonging. 

Citizenship rights

Citizenship is a notion that derives principally from constitutions and legal provisions. It also pertains to administrative sensitivity to particularities and mechanisms to address these.  I contend that resource lack is a factor, but nevertheless insist that not all delays and non-implementations can be attributed to this.  A more robust regime of implementation is required to resolve the day-to-day problems of the citizenry which find exacerbated articulation among minorities in certain instances. 

Citizenship rights can resolve many anomalies but subject to the qualification of adequate constitutional provision to insulate the citizen from the politician or the powerful.  They therefore are predicated on there being adequate systemic checks and balances to correct institutional flaws in terms of transparency and accountability.  They are not about special privileges for anyone but about ensuring equality across the board. 

I submit that the 1978 Constitution is patently anti-citizen and that well-being is largely dependent on the benevolence of the powerful.  Given power imbalances across society the overall health of society is therefore a lottery.  This needs to be corrected immediately so that institutional arrangement is sturdy enough to override whim and fancy of particular ruler.  I submit that the 18^th Amendment was a step back in terms of this objective and that whatever ‘resolution’ of minority grievance that ensues would be in the form of ruler-largesse and not citizenship right. 

Security

It is natural that security is a serious concern for Tamil people, given the context in which these hearings are being held.  Propaganda-led suspicion and the reality that the vast majority of personnel engaging the LTTE were Sinhalese overrides often the reality that the very same personnel rescued a population largely made of Tamils from the clutches of a terrorist and the agonies of protracted war.  The degree of threat required part suspension of normal legal provisions and the law turned a blind eye to a lot of informal processes.  I submit that while such departures are inevitable in times of war and create and feed a culture of lawlessness, post-war realities require a return to and a more stringent reiteration and enforcement of the law. This has to include a correction of flaws existing in the overall framework. 

The issue of ‘security’ is not a concern peculiar to minorities. It is a concern for all citizens. In this regard due acknowledgement is necessary of the fact that destabilizing forces exist and exist in vibrancy, both here and abroad, and that they operate in concert and possess a well-oiled mechanism to paint fiction as realities, exaggerate anomalies, and move powerful players in the international community against the state and by extension the people of this country. 

While the end of war considerably alleviated the sense of insecurity among all communities and especially Tamils in the Northern and Eastern Provinces who were unfortunately resident in the principal theatre of conflict, this fact is only consolation and relative merits should not and cannot be allowed to be turned into perpetual excuse for system-leak.

I acknowledge that courtesy of rabid pro-LTTE propaganda and meanness of spirit of certain key players in the international community, serious questions have been raised about the conduct of the military operation to eliminate the terrorist threat. Although these allegations even in aggregate do not indicate systemic violation of accepted practice, although they are utterly insignificant when one compares the track record of countries that have been raising shrill objections and demanding investigations, I submit that they need to be addressed in order to ward off unnecessary and distracting pressure on the country as it strives to move forward in the aftermath of a long and bloody war and in order to ensure more stringent submission to the basic norms of humanity in the future.  I submit the following points in this regard.  

1.      One of the important and critical issues that the LLRC has to address is the issue of ‘accountability’; i.e. how proper investigations and inquiries into allegations of crimes committed by all parties during the last stages of the armed conflict are to be conducted.

2.      I strongly believe that the Armed Forces of Sri Lanka did not pursue a policy of intentional and systematic harming of civilians. There is no evidence to prove that the Armed Forces carried out such a policy. And, the massive and remarkable humanitarian mission of saving the lives of some 300,000 civilians from the clutches of the LTTE during the last stages of the conflict could not have been carried out so successfully had the government pursued a barbaric policy of killing or harming innocent civilians.

3.      But we need to understand that given the nature of the terrorist group that the Armed Forces had to confront and given that group’s tactics and mode of operation, there could have been instances when the Armed Forces would have been faced with the enormous difficulty in distinguishing combatants and civilians. This is natural in any type of armed conflict and in one especially between forces of a State and a terrorist group which contains combatants (and suicide bombers) dressed as civilians.

4.      In such a context, there could have been instances when innocent civilians were harmed. And where allegations and accusations have been leveled (and these allegations, accusations and concerns relate in particular to those raised before this Commission by people especially in the Northern and Eastern parts of Sri Lanka), such allegations should be properly investigated.

5.      In addressing this issue of ‘accountability’, there are, I believe, two important issues that ought to be borne in mind. Firstly, that investigating alleged violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law does not diminish, but only enhances, the image of Sri Lanka. Investigating allegations of crimes and prosecuting those who may have committed those crimes is something that responsible States do. It is something that irresponsible States do not do. And there are plenty of examples of powerful States which have, and are, acting in such irresponsible ways in this world.

6.      The objection to outside investigation is a question of sovereignty, for it assumes that all allegations leveled against a state, include petty pilfering from the Treasury, needs to be appraised by a neutral umpire. On the other hand the absence of adequate and reliable independence in arbitration can and does give strength to the call for such interference.

7.      Secondly, Sri Lanka should not be seen to be a State which is unable or unwilling to carry out domestic investigations when and where necessary. The inability or unwillingness to investigate allegations through domestic investigative mechanisms gives rise to a consequence that Sri Lanka should do well to avoid: ‘international investigation’.

8.      I am referring here to the notion of ‘complementarity’; one frequently referred to in the discipline of international criminal law, and one which is referred to even in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (e.g. in Article 17(a) of the Statute). Therefore, a State should not be “unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation and prosecution” that is made necessary when allegations are leveled by people, especially, in those areas where the armed conflict took place. Also, to carry out such investigations, the State should have proper, credible and independent institutions and mechanisms.

9.    Therefore, I believe it is the duty of this Commission to come out with clear and concrete suggestions as to how such investigations should take place. This is of utmost importance. The LLRC comprises of distinguished members who are qualified and experienced to make such recommendations and suggestions to the government.  

Reconciliation is a matter that can flounder on inadequacies in dealing with mal-intentioned entities as such level these allegations.  One lesson that cannot be dismissed is that the LTTE’s intransigence and power derived to a large extent from its success in one particular sphere of operation: propaganda.  A comprehensive mechanism needs to be established to counter outrageous claims as being part and parcel of the overall national security requirement. 

In addition, it should be recognized that one of the most effective means of rendering such moves ineffective is a happy and thriving Tamil community living in harmony with their brethren among the Sinhalese, Muslims and other communities. Development is only one part of the answer. 

Sense of belonging

Let me touch upon the issue of belonging.  This is a matter that constitutional amendment alone will not resolve.  I believe that we have a long tradition of compassion, forgiveness and accommodation that makes inter-communal embrace possible.  Regardless of histories, regardless of wrong done to one another, regardless of vandalism and desecration, the validity or otherwise of claim, the name, identity and political persuasion of wrong-doer it is clear that this island belongs to all the citizens resident in it and that progress in any sphere will be hampered if we cannot live together and respect one another. 

Wars are about the clash of arms among parties at odds with one another. And yet, wars produce commonalities that are largely unrecognized. There is commonality in the suffering, the loss of life, dismemberment, displacement, orphaning, widowing, destruction etc.  There are also commonalities in hope and fear, sorrow at the loss of comrade, outrage at atrocity perpetrated. There is commonality in heroism too.  Such things don’t have an ethnic identity. They have a human quality; that of inadequacy as well as ‘exceptionalism’. 

Close to a hundred thousand people died over the last 30 years.  Regardless of who fought who over what and with whom, there is a need to recognize that there was heroism among all groups involved in the conflict.  There is a need to recognize that every person who died, every person who lost a limb or an eye or was in one way or another incapacitated and every person who was dispossessed in one way or another, was born on this land; that everyone had a mother and a father and perhaps a son, daughter, lover, spouse or friend.  They are lamented as son, daughter, father, mother, brother, sister, wife, husband, lover or friend more so than as champion of cause or defender of principle. 

In addition to all mechanisms and processes of reconciliation stated above, I propose that a monument be designed and constructed dedicated to what I would call ‘The Unnecessarily Dead’.  It should contain the names of everyone who died an unnatural death directly consequent to the conflict, not just the combatants but those who were at the wrong place at the wrong time or was thought to have spoken out of turn or opposed when support was considered non-negotiable and regardless of name, identity and political affiliation of assassin, manner, place and moment of death. Side by side.  They were all our fellow-creatures regardless of arguments over claims and counter-claims, right and wrong, the justice or otherwise of particular strategies and their implementation.

There are everyday acts of rebellion. There are everyday acts of rupturing inter-ethnic amity. There are everyday acts that enhance our worth as human beings. These cannot be legislated.  They are born, nurtured and find articulation based on the individual’s particular understanding of the eternal verities. 

As a Buddhist I can do no better than referring to the Word of the Buddha, in particular to the Sathara Brahma Viharana or the four sublime modes of living: Metta, Muditha, Karuna and Upekkha (Loving kindness, compassion, the ability to rejoice in the happiness of others and equanimity).  Even as we employ wisdom and reason, the unguent that heals terrible wounds must contain the ingredients of compassion and humility.  That is something every individual would do well, I believe, to take cognizance of. 

I thank you for your patience and once again express my gratitude for giving me this opportunity to share my thoughts.

Sabbe Satta Bhavantu Sukhitatta.

May all beings be happy.

Malinda Seneviratne

January 14, 2011

Read more