Mahinda Gunasekera

By E-mailƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  February 23, 2013

Editor
Toronto Star

Dear Editor,

Further to my letter of February 21, 2013, on the subject, I am pleased to send a letter published in
the Lankaweb on February 20, 2013 written by a Canadian under his pen name ‘Gamvesiya” wherein
he has analyzed several features of the related photographs showing the work of hostile elements
from the Tamil Tiger Terrorist separatist movement hell bent on framing Sri Lanka, who have tampered
with the photos to distort the true situation:

The boy in the Bunker ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” Faked Photo or real?

Posted on February 20th, 2013

by Gamvaesiya, Canada

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

Almost one year later, in the run-up to the new Geneva meeting of the UN Human-Rights Council, the Independent has once again resurfaced the same story as if it were a new now allegation, but now supported by a new picture. The new story, written by Andrew Bunscombe and published on Monday 16th February 2013 does not mention the previous articles, but claims that

ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-A series of photographs taken a few hours apart and on the same camera, show Balachandran Prabhakaran, son of Villupillai Prabhakaran, head of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). One of them shows the boy sitting in a bunker, alive and unharmed, apparently in the custody of Sri Lankan troops. Another, a few hours later, shows the boyƒÆ’†’ƒ”š‚¢ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢¢”š¬…¡ƒ”š‚¬ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢¢”š¬…¾ƒ”š‚¢s body lying on the ground, his chest pierced by bulletsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/handed-a-snack-and-then-executed-the-last-hours-of-the-12yearold-son-of-a-tamil-tiger-8500295.html) The new picture is shown below, as Fig. 2 where we have numbered certain locations for the purpose of discussion.

These allegations have been rejected by the Lankan government. To what extent are the claims valid? Since these are serious allegations, it is important to examine the veracity of the `evidenceƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ presented by the Independent which collaborates closely with Channel-4 and British Tamil Advocacy groups.

What raises suspicions is the surfacing of this picture after one year, with the claim that it is part of a successive footage from the same camera. Are there any other photos? Figure 2 clearly shows that the light comes to this under-ground bunker from the area numbered 1, and radiates towards 2, 3 etc. Nevertheless, the there are hardly any shadows consistent with the light source around the boyƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s body or the head area.

A blow-up of the region around the left shoulder of the child shows that, far from there being any type of shadow, a shoddy job of colour filing has been done along the edge of the shoulder. The shadow seen in the sand bags just left of number 9 indicates what to expect. Furthermore, the shadow of the edge of blanket near no. 7, on the arm, is completely in the wrong direction.

Furthermore, the end of the bench to the left off no. 6 does not show the planks, but appears to have been worked over on the initial canvas using graphic tools, totally obliterating the type of texture of the wood planks seen to the right of the boy.

It is also important to compare very carefully the trouser worn by the boy lying dead on the ground, shown below.

The narrow black flap on the pocket cover is 16-18 cm long and narrow, with a width of 4cm. On the other hand, the trouser worn by the boy seated on the wooden plank has a pocket flap which is much wider. The artist, in positioning the boy seems to have drawn the flap in a way different from that on the trouser of the boy dead, and laying on the ground. Two pictures of the boy sitting in the bunker have been published. If the pictures in the bunker are authentic, then the picture of the dead boy wearing a similar but different trouser is inconsistent with the claims of these British reports. Hence the new picture raises troubling questions about the way photos are being used as `evidenceƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ in an age where sophisticated graphic tools are readily available even to a child. Of course, the Tigers are well known to be past masters of publishing fake photos. Many pictures of Prabhakaran posing in groups with black tigers, or blown up bodies attributed to the army were published in the Tamil Net from as early as 10 years before the demise of the Tigers. After the demise of Prabakaran, Tamil sources published the now well known image of Prabhakaran sardonically watching his death announced on TV (see Fig. 4 below).

The British press has been rubbished for its devious ways many times recently, not only with respect to the Rupert Murdoch investigations, but with respect to many other scandals. The close associations of the producers of Channel-4 movies with key ex-LTTE UK-Tamils are well known. Clearly then, it is important that the British press authority or some other public watch dog requires that the sources of information be revealed in court and their veracity established transparently, in front of a suitable authority so that public can have some confidence of what they are shown.It is just not enough for reporter to say that `new evidenceƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ has turned up, or that some unnamed `expertsƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ have reviewed the material. Or, is it simply like expert-certified 100% beef lasagna turning out to be 100% horse meat?

Another interesting footnote would be the links had by members of the Tamil diaspora to the operations of the Channel 4 TV News organization, as revealed in the Sunday Leader of Sri Lanka on March 25, 2012:

“The Sunday Leader has unearthed startling evidence showing that the LTTE-leaning Diaspora in Britain have made in-roads to the highest levels within the British Channel 4 TV network.
> Sri Lankan born Shirani Sabaratnam originally from Jaffna and Vaddukoddai is married to Channel 4 TVƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s Director of Diversity, the well-known British journalist Stuart Cosgrove. Stuart CosgroveƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s responsibilities at Channel 4 is without doubt a major one: he oversees Channel 4ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s strategy to have innovation and to have creative diversity. He also is in charge of managing strategy and development of new companies, within the general ambit of Channel 4ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s operations with the ultimate aim of establishing Channel 4 as the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-most creatively diverse media organisation in EuropeƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚.
> Vaddukoddai is famous for the so-called ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Vaddukoddai ResolutionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ when the TULF in 1976 first called for the separation of the NorthƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  and the East in order that Tamil aspirations could be better dealt with.
> In 2010 Stuart Cosgrove participated in an unusual referendum: amongst the Tamil people of the world who voted for the creation of ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-EelamƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” a motherland for the Tamil community in the NorthƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  and the East of Sri Lanka.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  Sometime thereafter, Stuart Cosgrove wrote about that election, ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Maryhill (in Scotland) was chosen as a polling station in a global referendum organised by expatriate Tamils in their tense stand-off with Sri Lanka, a country that has resisted their independence.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ He added, the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-referendum is a fascinating story of democracy withheld, with more plotlines than a political thriller and enough constitutional twists to send ScotlandƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s political intelligentsia into paroxysms of near-erotic delight.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ Cosgrove also said, ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-My interest went beyond the observational. I was there to cast my vote. My wife, Shirani Sabaratnam, is a native Tamil speaker from Jaffna, on the northern peninsula of Sri Lanka. She still holds Sri Lankan citizenship and, as a ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-qualifying spouseƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚, I am allowed to participate in the poll. So, strange as it seems, the stubby pencil of democracy was rightfully mine. As I handed over my identity papers, I was acutely aware of the paradox. Voting Yes/Yes in the 1997 Scottish referendum on devolution seemed natural; voting in a referendum on Tamil independence was an unexpected experience.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚
> Cosgrove was able to vote at the referendumƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  because under the so-called rules of the Tamil Diaspora, he was a ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-qualifying spouseƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ through his marriage to Shirani Sabaratnam. Stuart Cosgrove waxed eloquent about the Tamil DiasporaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s battle with Sri LankaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s government, ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Tamils have for decades fought a relentless battle with successive Sri Lankan governments, demanding greater civil rights. With well-organised communities in Toronto, London and Paris, the Tamils are the undisputed world champions of diaspora politics.ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚
Yours truly,

Mahinda Gunasekera