Sri Lanka could not avoid the ‘Carrot & Stick’ policy of the United States in November 2002 during the then Ranil Wickremasinghe’s administration when it was forced to sign the globally controversial ICC Article 98 with the Super Power in exchange of economic and other benefits.

The international agreements mentioned in Article 98(2) of the Rome Statute during 2002 was referred to by several terms, including Article 98 agreements, bilateral immunity agreements (BIAs),impunity agreements, and bilateral non-surrender agreements. Starting in 2002, the United States began negotiating these agreements with individual countries – Sri Lanka was one – and had concluded one hundred such agreements by end of that year.

Countries that signed these agreements with the United States agreed not to surrender Americans, if they were in their territory, – who were charged or prosecuted as war criminals – to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

Ranil Wickremasinghe administration signed this agreement with the United States on 22 November 2002.

The benefits that were assured by the then Bush administration to Sri Lanka was enhanced economic cooperation, monetary assistance from IMF and IBRD in which the U.S. had 16% stakes, and total backing to the Norwegian-mediated peace talks with the Tamil Tigers assuring State Department’s number two official Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage’s ‘direct’ involvement in the peace process. Armitage was seen directly involved in the peace process during Mr. Wickremasinghe’s rule in 2002-04 although an American official of that high position never get involved in affairs of an insignificant Third World nation unless the U.S. had economic or national security interests.

The United States has again used its famous ‘Carrot & Stick’ policy in 2015 pledging Sri Lanka to free it from the (EU) GSP-Plus obstacles, provide economic assistance and enhanced cooperation in global forums if the latter assists the U.S. in it ‘Pivot To Asia’ policy to check Chinese expansion. The State Department also pledged to get the Office of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to soften its stance on alleged war crimes and violation of IHL while softening its own position in Geneva.

This is of course under a more consolidated and authoritative Ranil Wickremasinghe regime than the first one in 2002.

Nevertheless, the Washington policymakers who had been severely influenced by the professional activists of the Tamil Diaspora for decades could not totally dilute the stance of the UNHCHR. It endeavored to create the impression within Sri Lanka that the investigation proposed by the UNHCHR was not ‘hybrid’ but a domestic mechanism. It is true that the ‘term’ ‘Hybrid’ was removed from Geneva documents (and US resolution) but the intervention of foreign elements in the war crime probe stays according to the 8 October (2015) official statement posted in the US State Department Web Site.

This is what has been posted in the state department web site:

Fact Sheet
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
October 8, 2015

The outcomes of the 30th Session of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva underscored the importance of robust U.S. engagement at the Council, where the United States continues to work with countries from all regions to address urgent human rights concerns.

Sri Lanka: The U.S.-led resolution, which Sri Lanka co-sponsored, highlights the Sri Lankan government’s efforts to advance respect for human rights and strengthen good governance since January 2015, encourages the reform of domestic laws to facilitate accountability for past crimes related to the Sri Lankan civil war, affirms the importance of the participation of foreign judges and prosecutors in domestic accountability mechanisms, and requests further reporting by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

It was reported that the U.S. resolution – concurred by Sri Lanka – saved the Rajapaksas’ from the ‘electric chair’. But the above state department clarification does not give the impression that neither the Rajapaksas’ nor the military that defeated the Tamil Tigers ridding the nation from terrorism are spared.

The United States, under the George W. Bush-Dick Chaney administration, displayed its ‘Carrot & Stick’ policy to force one hundred-odd nations, all of them Third World under-developed or developing nations, to sign an agreement to save American citizens who are prosecuted or alleged for ‘Crimes Against Humanity’. This is while projecting itself champion of human rights using the policy of ‘Carrot & Stick’ to get wide range benefits.

In the year 2015, agreeing to the US resolution accepting the findings and proposals of the UNHCHR, Sri Lanka undoubtedly accrued certain economic gains from the West but also was made to believe that ‘this was not a hybrid mechanism’. Nevertheless, the 8 October 2015 State Department web site posting says otherwise.

This was not the fist occasion the United States blurred the vision of Third World nations to submission: It forced them -in 2002 – to agree to ‘protect’ American citizens engaged in America’s ‘Global War on Terror’ from prosecution and allegations of ‘Crimes Against Humanity’, war crimes under the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The Obama administration confirmed this Bush-Chaney policy most recently in 2014.

The American Embassy (Colombo) classified diplomatic cable to Washington dated 28 October 2002 said the following about the negotiations for the Article 98 Agreement with Sri Lanka’s Ranil Wickremasinghe administration:

(Excerpts) Camp thanked Wickremesinghe for his government’s “political decision” to sign an ICC Article 98 agreement, and asked when Sri Lanka would be ready to sign. Wickremesinghe recalled that he had assured A/S Rocca in New York (during a meeting on the margins of the UNGA) that Sri Lanka would sign; Camp noted that many nations had already signed Article 98 agreements with us. Signing soon would win GSL valuable positive attention among Washington decision-makers; waiting too long could result in other countries stealing Sri Lanka’s thunder. Wickremesinghe assured Camp that he would push the MFA to sign soon. Camp raised Article 98 in a meeting with Foreign Minister Tyronne Fernando the following day, reiterating the same points he made to the PM. Fernando noted that the MFA legal division had proposed an additional paragraph for the agreement (ref B) that would make it easier for GSL to sign. The Ambassador expressed skepticism that the additional paragraph would be acceptable to Washington, saying that Washington had put a lot of work into the text of the agreement and that many other countries had signed it without modifications. The GSL remains committed at the political level to signing an Article 98 agreement, and DAS Camp’s visit did much to help push this forward. Post is confident that GSL will sign the kind of Article 98 agreement that we want; we are working to ensure that happens sooner rather than later. (End Excerpts)

‘Camp’ who met Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe accompanied by the American Ambassador Ashley Wills was Donald Camp, deputy assistant secretary of state in Washington. It is interesting why Washington sent a very junior officer for these negotiations to Sri Lanka: Don Camp had two tours at the American Embassy in Colombo, first, in mid-1970s as junior labor/political officer and later, in late 1990s as the Chief of Political. He knew the terrain, the political atmosphere and principal players in the Kumaratunga-Wickremasinghe administration. The state department sent the correct person to ‘persuade’ or show the ‘Carrot & Stick’ to get Sri Lanka’s signature to this vital agreement.

In fact, when prime minister Wickremasinghe was in New York attending the UN General Assembly sessions, assistant secretary for South Asia of the State Department Christina Rocca, in the sideline, had met the former to canvass for his country’s concurrence.

The U.S. ‘Carrot & Stick’ policy was well depicted in another classified cable connected to the Latin American country Honduras. The cable says the Government of Honduras (GOH) recently signed the Article 98 agreement. Then it says:

(Begin Excerpts)The GOH recently signed an Article 98 agreement, despite pressure from other Latin American countries to decline. Honduras was the first Central American country to sign Article 98, and the Hondurans remain staunch supporters. Post believes that the GOH should receive a tangible sign of U.S. appreciation for signing the Article 98 agreement. At the recent USSOUTHCOM Security Assistance Conference (MILGP Commanders’ Conference), Brigadier General Vincent Brooks, Deputy Director, Pol Mil Affairs, WHEM, from Joint Staff J-5 stated that our new approach would be the “carrot and the stick”–in other words, the U.S. will help those countries that sign Article 98 agreements and cut aid to those that do not.The radar issue is the U.S.’s chance to demonstrate that we will assist countries that support us on Article 98.(End Excerpts)

USSOUTHCOM means the military command of the United States Southern Command which covers South American nations.

Article 98(2) of the Rome Statute that established the ICC is: The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender which would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations under international agreements pursuant to which the consent of a sending State is required to surrender a person of that State to the Court, unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of the sending State for the giving of consent for surrender.”

The ‘sending state’ meaning if an alleged (US) war criminal or prosecuted American citizen for Crimes Against Humanity was in the Sri Lankan territory, if Sri Lanka (the sending state) does not give the consent to surrender (because of an agreement with the US), the ICC (‘the Court may not proceed with a request for surrender’) is unable to seek custody of that person.

Sri Lanka in signing this Article 98(2) agreement with the United States in fact aided the latter to protect its own citizens who were accused or prosecuted for war crimes. US government has been seeking bilateral non-surrender agreements, or so-called Article 98” agreements, in an effort to shield US citizens from the jurisdiction of the then newly created International Criminal Court .

The agreement provided that current or former government officials, military and other personnel are not transferred to the jurisdiction of the ICC.

The US government’s Article 98” agreements have been constituted solely for the purpose of
providing individuals or groups of individuals with immunity from the ICC. Furthermore, the
agreements did not ensure that the US would investigate and, if necessary, prosecute alleged crimes. Therefore, the intent of the US bilateral immunity agreements was contrary to the overall purpose of the ICC, which was to ensure that genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes be addressed either at the national level or by an international judicial body.

The US agreement signed with about one hundred-odd countries – which included Sri Lanka – had this clause:

“1. For purposes of this agreement, ‘persons’ are current or former Government officials, employees (including contractors), or military personnel or nationals of one Party.

2. Persons of one Party present in the territory of the other shall not, absent the expressed consent of the first Party,-

(a) be surrendered or transferred by any means to the International Criminal Court for any purpose, or

(b) be surrendered or transferred by any means to any other entity or third country, for the purpose of surrender to or transfer to the International Criminal Court”.

Agreement regarding the surrender of persons to the International Criminal Court between the United States and Sri Lanka was Signed at Colombo, November 22, 2002; entered into force July 4, 2003.

The Agreement was signed by US Ambassador Ashley Will and Sri Lanka foreign minister Tyronne Fernando. The agreement is still in force and President Obama confirmed it in 2014.

– Asian Tribune –

පලාලි සින්ඩ්‍රෝමයේ කම්පනය –පශ්චාත් යුද මානසිකත්ව සංකූලතාව පිලිබඳ ශ්‍රී ලාංකීය අත්දැකීම  වෛද්‍ය රුවන් එම් ජයතුංගගේ කෘතියක්.

By Neville Ladduwahetty Courtesy Island

The fact that the Government did not exploit these internationally accepted provisions to restrict the impact of the OHCHR report, but instead, co-sponsored the resolution on Sri Lanka is to be deeply regretted. Since the findings in the report are not mandatory it may not be too late to reevaluate at least some of the “principal findings” since para. 1115 states that the “findings listed below are analysed primarily within the framework of international human rights law”, when in fact all of the findings should be analysed within the framework of international humanitarian law and the rulings of International Tribunals. Furthermore, even the conclusions reached and the recommendations made should be revisited on the basis of International humanitarian law and rulings by International Tribunals.

The UN Human Rights Council is mandated to “promote and protect Human Rights for All”. However, the report by OISL for the OHCHR states in paragraph 171that ” OISL has conducted its investigation within the framework of international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law”. Considering that the Report’s conclusions and recommendations are based on a remit that goes way beyond lawful mandate, the validity of the report becomes questionable.

Paragraph 182 of the OISL report acknowledges that “Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions relating to conflicts not of an international character is applicable to the situation in Sri Lanka…”. The report thus acknowledges that the conflict in Sri Lanka had reached the internationally recognized threshold of an Armed Conflict. Salient from this categorization are the following:

1. That the applicable law during the course of the Armed Conflict (February 2002 to May 2009) is International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with the ICRC as the accepted custodians of IHL.

2. That all parties to the conflict are “bound equally by the relevant rules of customary international law applicable to non-international armed conflict” (Paragraph 183).

3. That there is derogation of Human Rights depending on the intensity of civil unrest. Such derogation culminates in what is recognized as “hard core” of Human Rights during an Armed Conflict.

An ICRC publication of October 2002 titled “International humanitarian law: answers to your questions” states: “The international instruments contain clauses that authorize States confronted with serious threats to suspend the rights enshrined in them. An exception is made for certain fundamental rights laid down in each treaty, which must be respected in all circumstances and may never be waived regardless of the treaty. In particular, these include the right to life, the prohibition of torture and human punishment or treatment, slavery and servitude, and the principle of legality and non-retroactivity of the law. These fundamental rights that States are bound to respect in all circumstances even in the event of a conflict or disturbance are known as hard core human rights” (p. 37).

The recognition that human rights are derogated during conflicts or disturbances is also reflected in Sri Lanka’s Constitution. Article 15 Clauses 7 and 8 of Chapter III titled FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS states:

(7) “The exercise and operation of all the fundamental rights declared and recognized by Articles 12, 13 (1), 13 (2) and 14 shall be subject to such restrictions as may be prescribed by law in the interest of national security…”

(8) “The exercise and operation of fundamental rights declared and recognized by Articles 12 (1), 13 and 14 shall, in their application to the members of the Armed Forces, Police Force and other Forces charged with maintenance of public order, be subject to such restrictions as may be prescribed by law…”.

The fact that the OISL report ignores recognized restriction of human rights during conflict both nationally and internationally means the conclusions reached and the recommendations made in the report are flawed. Furthermore, the OISL report is critical of the conduct of the Government after hostilities ceased in May 2009, not realizing that the International Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (1995) ruled that “International humanitarian law applies from the initiation of such armed conflicts and extends beyond the cessation of hostilities until…in the case of internal conflicts, a peaceful settlement is reached. Until that moment, international humanitarian law continues to apply in the… whole territory under the control of a party, whether or not actual combat takes place there”.

A further fact that should be borne in mind is that the UN Charter on Human Rights, Article 11, the Constitution of Sri Lanka Article 13 Clause 6, as well as the ICRC ruling cited above recognize the “non-retroactivity of the law” pertaining to innocence/guilt regarding offences.

The fact that the Government did not exploit these internationally accepted provisions to restrict the impact of the OHCHR report, but instead, co-sponsored the resolution on Sri Lanka is to be deeply regretted. Since the findings in the report are not mandatory it may not be too late to reevaluate at least some of the “principal findings” since para. 1115 states that the “findings listed below are analysed primarily within the framework of international human rights law”, when in fact all of the findings should be analysed within the framework of international humanitarian law and the rulings of International Tribunals. Furthermore, even the conclusions reached and the recommendations made should be revisited on the basis of International humanitarian law and rulings by International Tribunals.

COMMENT on RECOMMENDATIONS

In addition the Government should seek exemption of recommendations that impact on the internal affairs of a sovereign State on grounds of non-intervention. For instance, general recommendations and those pertaining to Institutional reforms and in particular those relating to Justice are a clear intrusion into the internal affairs of a sovereign State in complete violation of Article 2 Clause 7 of the UN Charter.

This Article states:

“Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter…”

Therefore, the Government is on solid ground to request the OHCHR to revisit those recommendations that are “essentially within the domestic jurisdiction” of Sri Lanka. If the Government fails to address this issue, in particular aspects relating to the section on justice, there is a possibility that the public could lose confidence in the rulings of Courts and Sri Lanka’s judicial system.

CONCLUSION

The OISL Report reveals that the OHCHR has achieved two major objectives at the expense of Sri Lanka.

1. The Sri Lankan experience has sanctioned the OHCHR to expand its scope of operations from addressing issues relating only to its mandate of International Human Rights Law, to include issues relating to International Humanitarian Law. There has been no official revision of the mandate by the General Assembly.

2. The OHCHR has invited itself “to establish a full-fledged country presence to monitor the human rights situation.” , i.e., a permanent presence to look over Sri Lanka’s shoulder, and to monitor the situation and report favourably/ unfavourably to suit the geopolitical interests of major powers sponsoring the Resolution.

Considering the idealism with which the UN Declaration of Human Rights was created following the end of WWII, it is indeed a sad day that the UN has now become a pawn in the hands of big power politics. In this background, small countries will have to be extra vigilant if they are to survive as free and independent States. Sri Lanka has arrived at such a cross-road. The choices it makes now would determine its future destiny.

1. Adopted Resolution (with SL’s co-sponsorship)Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General -Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka
2. High Commissioner’s recommendations) (SL has agreed in the adopted resolution to implement them) – Remember, this report has been complied on the evidence,  collected from over 6000 people, whose names won’t be revealed until 2030.Comprehensive report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on Sri Lanka
3. An image of some of the WAR HEROES whose name are in UNHRC possession

If the above reports are complicated to understand?:
Listen to the following analysis & compare with the contents of the reports and check  what they say are  correct or not?

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G__8w9gnAsU (by Prof. G.L.Peries)

2.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94BcWECAtHw  (by Dr. Dayan Jayatilleke)

General Assembly

Distr.: Limited
29 September 2015
Original: English

Human Rights Council

Thirtieth session

Agenda item 2

Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the
High Commissioner and the Secretary-General

Albania, Australia,* Germany, Greece,* Latvia, Montenegro, Poland,* Romania,* Sri Lanka,* the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America: draft resolution

30/…   Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka

The Human Rights Council,

Reaffirming the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Guided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights and other relevant instruments,

Recalling Human Rights Council resolutions 19/2 of 22 March 2012, 22/1 of 21 March 2013 and 25/1 of 27 March 2014 on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka,

Reaffirming its commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka,

Reaffirming also that it is the responsibility of each State to ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms of its entire population,

Welcoming the historic free and fair democratic elections in January and August 2015 and the peaceful political transition in Sri Lanka,

Noting with interest the passage and operationalization of the nineteenth amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka and its contribution to the promotion of democratic governance and independent oversight of key institutions, including the provision on the promotion of national reconciliation and integration as among the constitutional duties of the President of Sri Lanka,

Welcoming the steps taken by the Government of Sri Lanka since January 2015 to advance respect for human rights and to strengthen good governance and democratic institutions,

Welcoming also the efforts of the Government of Sri Lanka to investigate allegations of bribery, corruption, fraud and abuse of power, and stressing the importance of such investigations and the prosecution of those responsible in ending impunity and promoting good governance,

Welcoming further the steps taken to strengthen civilian administration in the former conflict-affected provinces of the North and East, and acknowledging the progress made by the Government of Sri Lanka in rebuilding infrastructure, demining and resettling internally displaced persons, and calling upon the international community, including the United Nations, to assist the Government of Sri Lanka in furthering these efforts, especially in expediting the process of delivering durable solutions for all internally displaced persons,

Recognizing the improved environment for members of civil society and human rights defenders in Sri Lanka while expressing concern at reports of ongoing violations and abuses of human rights, and recognizing the expressed commitment of the Government of Sri Lanka to address issues, including those involving sexual and gender-based violence and torture, abductions, as well as intimidation of and threats against human rights defenders and members of civil society,

Reaffirming that all Sri Lankans are entitled to the full enjoyment of their human rights regardless of religion, belief or ethnicity, in a peaceful and unified land,

Reaffirming also that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights law, international refugee law and international humanitarian law, as applicable,

Welcoming the Declaration of Peace of the Government of 4 February 2015 and its acknowledgement of the loss of life and victims of violence of all ethnicities and religions,

Emphasizing the importance of a comprehensive approach to dealing with the past, incorporating the full range of judicial and non-judicial measures, including , inter alia, individual prosecutions, reparations, truth-seeking, institutional reform, the vetting of public employees and officials, or an appropriately conceived combination thereof, in order to, inter alia, ensure accountability, serve justice, provide victims with remedies, promote healing and reconciliation, establish independent oversight of the security system, restore confidence in the institutions of the State and promote the rule of law in accordance with international human rights law with a view to preventing the recurrence of violations and abuses, and welcoming in this regard the expressed commitment of the Government to ensure dialogue and wide consultations with all stakeholders,

Recognizing that mechanisms to redress past abuses and violations work best when they are independent, impartial and transparent; are led by individuals known for displaying the highest degree of professionalism, integrity and impartiality; utilize consultative and participatory methods that include the views from all relevant stakeholders, including, but not limited to, victims, women, youth, representatives of various religions, ethnicities and geographic locations, as well as marginalized groups; and designed and implemented based on expert advice from those with relevant international and domestic experience,

Recognizing also that a credible accountability process for those most responsible for violations and abuses will safeguard the reputation of those, including within the military, who conducted themselves in an appropriate manner with honour and professionalism,

Recalling the responsibility of States to comply with their relevant obligations to prosecute those responsible for gross violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law constituting crimes under international law, with a view to ending impunity,

Taking note of the review of the high-security zones undertaken by the Government, and welcoming the initial steps taken to return land to its rightful civilian owners and to help local populations to resume livelihoods and to restore normality to civilian life,

Welcoming the commitments of the Government of Sri Lanka to the devolution of political authority,

Requesting the Government of Sri Lanka to implement effectively the constructive recommendations made in the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission,

Welcoming the visit from 30 March to 3 April 2015 by and the observations of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, and the planned visit of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances in November 2015,

Recognizing that the investigation into alleged serious violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes in Sri Lanka requested by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 25/1 was necessitated by the absence of a credible national process of accountability,

1. Takes note with appreciation of the oral update presented by the United Nations High Commissioner to the Human Rights Council at its twenty-seventh session, the report of the Office of the High Commissioner on promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka[1] and its investigation on Sri Lanka requested by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 25/1,[2] including its findings and conclusions, and encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations contained therein when implementing measures for truth-seeking, justice, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence;
2. Welcomes the positive engagement between the Government of Sri Lanka and the High Commissioner and the Office of the High Commissioner since January 2015, and encourages the continuation of that engagement in the promotion and protection of human rights and in exploring appropriate forms of international support for and participation in Sri Lankan processes for seeking truth and justice;
3. Supports the commitment of the Government of Sri Lanka to strengthen and safeguard the credibility of the processes of truth-seeking, justice, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence by engaging in broad national consultations with the inclusion of victims and civil society, including non-governmental organizations, from all affected communities, which will inform the design and implementation of these processes, drawing on international expertise, assistance and best practices;
4. Welcomes the commitment of the Government of Sri Lanka to undertake a comprehensive approach to dealing with the past, incorporating the full range of judicial and non-judicial measures; also welcomes in this regard the proposal by the Government to establish a commission for truth, justice, reconciliation and non-recurrence, an office of missing persons and an office for reparations; further welcomes the willingness of the Government to give each mechanism the freedom to obtain financial, material and technical assistance from international partners, including the Office of the High Commissioner; and affirms that these commitments, if implemented fully and credibly, will help to advance accountability for serious crimes by all sides and to achieve reconciliation;
5. Recognizes the need for a process of accountability and reconciliation for the violations and abuses committed by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, as highlighted in the report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights investigation on Sri Lanka;²
6. Welcomes the recognition by the Government of Sri Lanka that accountability is essential to uphold the rule of law and to build confidence in the people of all communities of Sri Lanka in the justice system, notes with appreciation the proposal of the Government of Sri Lanka to establish a judicial mechanism with a special counsel to investigate allegations of violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law, as applicable; affirms that a credible justice process should include independent judicial and prosecutorial institutions led by individuals known for their integrity and impartiality; and also affirms in this regard the importance of participation in a Sri Lankan judicial mechanism, including the special counsel’s office, of Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers and authorized prosecutors and investigators;
7. Encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to reform its domestic law to ensure that it can implement effectively its own commitments, the recommendations made in the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, as well as the recommendations of the report of the Office of the High Commissioner,¹ including by allowing for, in a manner consistent with its international obligations, the trial and punishment of those most responsible for the full range of crimes under the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations relevant to violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law, including during the period covered by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission;
8. Also encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to introduce effective security sector reforms as part of its transitional justice process, which will help to enhance the reputation and professionalism of the military and include ensuring that no scope exists for retention in or recruitment into the security forces of anyone credibly implicated through a fair administrative process in serious crimes involving human rights violations or abuses or violations of international humanitarian law, including members of the security and intelligence units; and also to increase training and incentives focused on the promotion and protection of human rights of all Sri Lankans;
9. Welcomes the recent passage by the Government of Sri Lanka of an updated witness and victim protection law and its commitment to review the law, and encourages the Government to strengthen these essential protections by making specific accommodations to protect effectively witnesses and victims, investigators, prosecutors and judges;
10. Also welcomes the initial steps taken to return land, and encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to accelerate the return of land to its rightful civilian owners, and to undertake further efforts to tackle the considerable work that lies ahead in the areas of land use and ownership, in particular the ending of military involvement in civilian activities, the resumption of livelihoods and the restoration of normality to civilian life, and stresses the importance of the full participation of local populations, including representatives of civil society and minorities, in these efforts;
11. Encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to investigate all alleged attacks by individuals and groups on journalists, human rights defenders, members of religious minority groups and other members of civil society, as well as places of worship, and to hold perpetrators of such attacks to account and to take steps to prevent such attacks in the future;
12. Welcomes the commitment of the Government of Sri Lanka to review the Public Security Ordinance Act and to review and repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and to replace it with anti-terrorism legislation in accordance with contemporary international best practices;
13. Also welcomes the commitment of the Government of Sri Lanka to sign and ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance without delay, to criminalize enforced disappearances and to begin to issue certificates of absence to the families of missing persons as a temporary measure of relief;
14. Further welcomes the commitment of the Government of Sri Lanka to release publicly previous presidential commission reports;
15. Encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to develop a comprehensive plan and mechanism for preserving all existing records and documentation relating to human rights violations and abuses and violations of international humanitarian law, whether held by public or private institutions;
16. Welcomes the commitment of the Government of Sri Lanka to a political settlement by taking the necessary constitutional measures, encourages the Government’s efforts to fulfil its commitments on the devolution of political authority, which is integral to reconciliation and the full enjoyment of human rights by all members of its population; and also encourages the Government to ensure that all Provincial Councils are able to operate effectively, in accordance with the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka;
17. Also welcomes the commitment of the Government of Sri Lanka to issue instructions clearly to all branches of the security forces that violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including those involving torture, rape and sexual violence, are prohibited and that those responsible will be investigated and punished, and encourages the Government to address all reports of sexual and gender-based violence and torture;
18. Requests the Office of the High Commissioner to continue to assess progress on the implementation of its recommendations and other relevant processes related to reconciliation, accountability and human rights, and to present an oral update to the Human Rights Council at its thirty-second session, and a comprehensive report followed by discussion on the implementation of the present resolution at its thirty-fourth session;
19. Encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to continue to cooperate with special procedure mandate holders, including by responding formally to outstanding requests;
20. Encourages the Office of the High Commissioner and relevant special procedure mandate holders to provide, in consultation with and with the concurrence of the Government of Sri Lanka, advice and technical assistance on implementing the above-mentioned steps.

from:
http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/d_res_dec/A_HRC_30_L29.docx

*                                    * Non-member State of the Human Rights Council.

[1]                                   A/HRC/30/61.

[2]                        See A/HRC/30/CRP.2.

<<ODS JOB NO>>N1522093E<<ODS JOB NO>>

<<ODS DOC SYMBOL1>>A/HRC/30/L.29<<ODS DOC SYMBOL1>>

<<ODS DOC SYMBOL2>><<ODS DOC SYMBOL2>>

United Nations A/HRC/30/61

General Assembly Distr.: General

28 September 2015

Original: English

Human Rights Council

Thirtieth session

Agenda item 2

Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the
High Commissioner and the Secretary-General

Comprehensive report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on Sri Lanka*

Contents

                                                                                                                                                                                                              Page

1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
2. Engagement of the Office of the High Commissioner and the special procedures……………………………………. 4

III.      Human rights and related developments…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4

1. Principal findings of the investigation……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
2. Unlawful killings………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6
3. Violations relating to the deprivation of liberty………………………………………………………………………………. 7
4. Enforced disappearances…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7
5. Torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment ………………………………………………….. 8
6. Sexual and gender-based violence …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8
7. Abductions and forced recruitment…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8
8. Recruitment of children and their use in hostilities………………………………………………………………………….. 8
9. Impact of hostilities on civilians and civilian objects …………………………………………………………………….. 9
10. Control of movement …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10
11. Denial of humanitarian assistance ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 11
12. Screening and deprivation of liberty of internally displaced persons ……………………………………………. 11
13. Steps towards accountability and reconciliation…………………………………………………………………………………….. 11
14. Presidential Commission to Investigate into Complaints regarding Missing Persons…………………… 12
15. Emblematic cases …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13
16. Mass graves ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 14
17. Looking ahead………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 14

VII.      Conclusions and recommendations………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 16

1. Government of Sri Lanka………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 17
2. United Nations system and Member States…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
3. Introduction
4. The present report is submitted pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 25/1, in which the Council requested the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to monitor the human rights situation in Sri Lanka and to continue to assess progress on relevant national processes; to undertake a comprehensive investigation into alleged serious violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes by both parties in Sri Lanka during the period covered by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, with assistance from relevant experts and special procedures mandate holders; and to present a comprehensive report to the Council at its twenty-eighth session.
5. Following signals of engagement by the newly elected Government of Sri Lanka in January 2015 and the possibility that further information might become available for the investigation, the Human Rights Council accepted the recommendation made by the High Commissioner that consideration of the report be deferred until the thirtieth session (see A/HRC/28/23).
6. The present report includes the findings of the OHCHR investigation on Sri Lanka, a special team established by the former High Commissioner, Navi Pillay, to conduct the comprehensive investigation mandated by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 25/1 (see also A/HRC/30/CRP.2). The High Commissioner invited three distinguished experts – Martti Ahtisaari, former President of Finland, Dame Silvia Cartwright, former High Court judge of New Zealand, and Asma Jahangir, former President of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan – to play a supportive and advisory role. Human Rights Council special procedure mandate holders also made their input to the investigation.
7. It is important at the outset to stress that the present report represents a human rights investigation, not a criminal investigation. The time frame covered by the investigation, the extent of the violations, the amount of information available and the constraints to the investigation, including lack of access to Sri Lanka and witness protection concerns, posed enormous challenges. Nevertheless, the investigation team attempted to identify the patterns of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law perpetrated, not only during the final stage of the armed conflict but during the whole period covered by investigation.
8. These patterns of conduct consisted of multiple incidents that occurred over time. They usually required resources, coordination, planning and organization, and were often executed by a number of perpetrators within a hierarchical command structure. Such systemic acts cannot be treated as ordinary crimes but, if established in a court of law, may constitute international crimes, which give rise to command as well as individual responsibility.
9. The report is submitted to the Human Rights Council in a very different context to the one in which it was mandated. The election of a new President and Government on a platform centred on good governance, human rights and the rule of law have given Sri Lanka a historic opportunity to address the grave human rights violations that have wracked its past, to pursue accountability and institutional reform, to ensure truth, justice and redress to many thousands of victims, and to lay the basis for long-term reconciliation and peace. Sri Lanka has, however, had such opportunities in the past, and the findings of the OHCHR investigation highlight the need for political courage and leadership to tackle comprehensively the deep-seated and institutionalized impunity that generates the risk of such violations being repeated.
10. Engagement of the Office of the High Commissioner and the special procedures
11. When the Human Rights Council adopted resolution 25/1, the Government of Sri Lanka categorically and unreservedly rejected” it and refused to engage in any related process”. Former government ministers and officials repeatedly criticized and indeed vilified the OHCHR investigation in public and, more seriously, resorted to an unrelenting campaign of intimidation and harassment against victims, witnesses and representatives of civil society who might seek to provide information to OHCHR.
12. Since January 2015, the tenor of the Government’s engagement with OHCHR has changed markedly. Although the new Government did not change its stance on cooperation with the investigation, nor admit the investigation team to the country, it engaged more constructively with the High Commissioner and OHCHR on possible options for an accountability and reconciliation process.
13. The Government also invited the Special Rapporteur on truth, justice, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence to make a technical visit from 30 March to 3 April 2015. The Special Rapporteur stressed the importance of developing a comprehensive State policy on transitional justice through broad public consultation and participation, particularly of persons affected by violations.
14. The Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances was also invited to visit Sri Lanka from 2 to 12 August 2015, but was requested to postpone its visit when these dates fell close to the parliamentary elections. The Working Group’s visit has now been confirmed for November 2015.

III. Human rights and related developments

11. The presidential election of 8 January 2015 marked a watershed in the political environment in Sri Lanka. The common opposition candidate, Mathiripala Sirisena, defeated the incumbent President Mahinda Rajapaksa with the support of a broad coalition derived from all ethnic communities and spread over the ideological spectrum. A new Cabinet was formed with the former opposition leader, Ranil Wickremesinghe, as Prime Minister.
12. The manifesto of the new Government included a 100-day programme of constitutional reform and other measures, which culminated in the passage of the nineteenth amendment to the Constitution limiting the powers of the executive presidency, re-introduced limits to presidential terms and restored the Constitutional Council, which makes recommendations on appointments to the judiciary and independent commissions. The Chief Justice, who was controversially impeached in January 2013, was briefly reinstated before the senior-most judge on the bench was appointed as her successor.
13. Parliamentary elections were subsequently held on 17 August 2015. The United National Front for Good Governance, the coalition of parties that had governed since January 2015, won the largest number of seats, and a new Cabinet was formed on 4 September 2015.
14. Since January 2015 there has been a significant opening of space for freedom of expression, at least in Colombo, although reports of surveillance, interference and harassment of human rights defenders continued to be received at the district level. On 16 January, the Government lifted restrictions on access by journalists to the northern region.
15. While President Sirisena appointed new civilian governors for both the Northern and Eastern Provinces, and the major security checkpoint leading to the North was removed in August 2015, the Government is still to embark on any comprehensive process of demilitarization. Local civil society sources recorded 26 cases of harassment and intimidation by military and intelligence services in the North and East during the period from January to August 2015. This figure highlights the reality that the structures and institutional cultures that created the repressive environment of the past remain in place and will require much more fundamental security sector reform.
16. Six years after the end of the war, many displaced populations have yet to achieve durable solutions, particularly with regard to livelihoods. One major continuing problem is the military occupation of private land, although the Government has proceeded with some land releases in Thellipallai and Kopai in the North and in Sampur in the East.
17. Land issues have been further complicated by secondary occupation by civilians; loss, destruction and damage to land documents; competing claims; landlessness; and un-regularized land claims. Care must also be taken to ensure that land distribution does not exacerbate existing intra- and inter-community tensions, since land disputes have become increasingly politicized and ethnicized in return areas.
18. Women head nearly 60,000 households in the Northern Province.[1] Owing to food insecurity, rising inflation and lack of livelihood opportunities, such households are pushed further into debt, thereby increasing their vulnerability to exploitation. In the militarized context in conflict-affected areas, they are extremely vulnerable to sexual harassment, exploitation and violence.
19. The Government has been slow to clarify the number and identity of detainees still held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and emergency regulations. At the time of writing, the Government had reportedly acknowledged 258 remaining detainees: 60 had not been charged; 54 had a prior conviction; while the remaining cases were pending. Reports have continued to emerge about the existence of secret and unacknowledged places of detention, which require urgent investigation.
20. The Prevention of Terrorism Act, which has long provided a legal context for arbitrary detention, unfair trials and torture, remains in force (see CCPR/C/LKA/CO/5, para. 11). According to local civil society sources, from January to August 2015, 19 people were arrested under the Act, of whom 12 remain in detention. Although the Government has engaged in dialogue with Tamil diaspora groups, it has not yet taken steps to delist the numerous Tamil diaspora organizations and individuals proscribed under the Act in March 2013.
21. Torture and sexual violence remain a critical concern, both in relation to the conflict and in the regular criminal justice system. A non-governmental organization that provides victims with medical services has highlighted six cases since the change of Government in 2015. A total of 37 per cent of the cases documented in its report[2] concerned individuals who had returned to Sri Lanka after the conflict, a few of them rejected asylum seekers.
22. During the period between March 2014 and August 2015, one non-governmental organization reported 112 incidents of hate speech against the Muslim community, 22 since January 2015.[3] During the same period, Christian groups reported 126 incidents targeting Christians and religious sites, 57 since January 2015.[4] In April 2015, the Government announced plans to revise the Penal Code to criminalize hate speech; these amendments have yet to be presented.
23. As at August 2015, there were no prosecutions in relation to attacks by the Buddhist group Bodu Bala Sena on the Muslim community in Aluthgama in June 2014, where four people were reportedly killed and 80 injured.
24. Principal findings of the investigation
25. The section below summarizes the principal findings established by OHCHR as a result of its investigation and on the basis of the information in its possession. The sheer number of allegations, their gravity, recurrence and the similarities in their modus operandi, as well as the consistent pattern of conduct they indicate, all point to system crimes. While it has not always been possible to establish the identity of those responsible for serious alleged violations, these findings demonstrate that there are reasonable grounds to believe that gross violations of international human rights law, serious violations of international humanitarian law and international crimes were committed by all parties during the period under review. Indeed, if established before a court of law, many of the allegations may, depending on the circumstances, amount to war crimes if a nexus is established with the armed conflict and/or crimes against humanity if committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. In some of the cases, the alleged acts were apparently committed on discriminatory grounds.
26. Unlawful killings
27. On the basis of the information obtained by the investigation team, there are reasonable grounds to believe the Sri Lankan security forces and paramilitary groups associated with them were implicated in unlawful killings carried out in a widespread manner against civilians and other protected persons. Tamil politicians, humanitarian workers and journalists were particularly targeted during certain periods, although ordinary civilians were also among the victims. There appears to have been discernible patterns of killings, for instance in the vicinity of security force checkpoints and military bases, and also of individuals while in the custody of security forces. If established before a court of law, these may, depending on the circumstances, amount to war crimes and/or crimes against humanity.
28. The investigation team also gathered information that gives reasonable grounds to believe that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) also unlawfully killed Tamil, Muslim and Sinhalese civilians perceived to hold sympathies contrary to LTTE. LTTE targeted rival Tamil political parties, suspected informers and dissenting Tamils, including political figures, public officials and academics, as well as members of rival paramilitary groups. Civilians were among the many killed or injured in indiscriminate suicide bombings and claymore mine attacks carried out by LTTE. Depending on the circumstances and if confirmed by a court of law, these may amount to war crimes and or crimes against humanity.
29. The team also investigated allegations of extrajudicial executions of identified LTTE cadres and unidentified individuals on or around 18 May 2009, some of whom were known to have surrendered to the Sri Lankan military. Although some facts remain to be established, on the basis of witness testimony as well as photographic and video imagery, there appears to be sufficient information in several cases to indicate that they were killed after being taken into custody. Depending on the circumstances and if confirmed by a court of law, many of the cases described in the report may amount to war crimes and/ or crimes against humanity.
30. Violations relating to the deprivation of liberty
31. The investigation team documented long-standing patterns of arbitrary arrest and detention by government security forces, and of abductions by paramilitary organizations linked to them, which often reportedly led to enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings.
32. The typical modus operandi involved the arbitrary arrest or abduction of individuals by the security forces, sometimes with the assistance of paramilitary group members operating in unmarked white vans” that were reportedly able to pass security checkpoints or to enter security force bases.
33. These violations were and still are facilitated by the extensive powers of arrest and detention provided for in the Prevention of Terrorism Act still in force, and by the emergency regulations that were in force until 2011. Such cases of unlawful and arbitrary arrest and detention are clearly in violation of the State’s obligations under international human rights law. Depending on the circumstances and if confirmed by a court of law, these violations may amount to war crimes and/or crimes against humanity.
34. Enforced disappearances
35. During the course of its investigation, the team reviewed reliable information on hundreds of cases of enforced disappearance arising during the period under review in various parts of the country, with particular prevalence in the Northern and Eastern Provinces. Furthermore, the mass detention regime after the end of hostilities also led to enforced disappearances.
36. On the basis of the information available, the team has reasonable grounds to believe that the Sri Lankan authorities have, in a widespread and systematic manner, deprived a considerable number of victims of their liberty, and then refused to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or concealed the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared person. This, in effect, removed these persons from the protection of the law and placed them at serious risk. Family members of the disappeared persons were also subjected to reprisals and denied the right to an effective remedy, including the right to the truth.
37. There are reasonable grounds to believe that enforced disappearances may have been committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population, given the geographical scope and time frame in which they were perpetrated, by the same security forces and targeting the same population. In particular, there are reasonable grounds to believe that those who disappeared after handing themselves over to the army at the end of the conflict were deliberately targeted because they were or were perceived to be affiliated with LTTE forces.
38. Torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
39. The investigation team documented the use of torture by the Sri Lankan security forces, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the armed conflict, when former LTTE members and civilians were detained en masse. This conduct followed similar patterns by a range of security forces in multiple facilities, including army camps, police stations and rehabilitation camps”, as well as in secret, unidentified locations.
40. On the basis of the information obtained by the team, there are reasonable grounds to believe that acts of torture were committed on a widespread or systematic scale. Such acts breach the absolute prohibition of torture and the State’s international treaty and customary obligations. If established before a court of law, these acts of torture may, depending on the circumstances, amount to crimes against humanity and/or war crimes.
41. Sexual and gender-based violence
42. The information gathered by the investigation team gave reasonable grounds to believe that rape and other forms of sexual violence by security forces personnel was widespread against both male and female detainees, particularly in the aftermath of the armed conflict. The patterns of sexual violence appear to have been a deliberate means of torture to extract information and to humiliate and punish persons who were presumed to have links with LTTE.
43. Owing in particular to the fear of reprisals, the stigma and trauma attached, and the other constraints its investigation faced, the team was unable to assess fully the scale of the sexual violence used against those detained. The team nevertheless considers that, on the basis of the information it gathered, there are reasonable grounds to believe that violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law relating to sexual violence were committed by government security forces, and that some of these acts may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.
44. Abductions and forced recruitment
45. The investigation team gathered information that reflected a pattern of abductions leading to the forced recruitment of adults by LTTE until 2009. The forced recruits were obliged to perform both military and support functions and were often denied contact with their families. Towards the end of the conflict, abductions leading to forced recruitment became more prevalent. Victims and families who tried to resist were physically mistreated, harassed and threatened.
46. In the view of the team, abductions leading to forced recruitment and forced labour were in contravention of common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and of the obligations under international humanitarian law of LTTE to treat humanely persons taking no direct part in hostilities and those placed hors de combat. In cases in which the movement of those forcibly recruited was severely restricted, the investigation team is of the view that this may amount to a deprivation of liberty. If established by a court of law, these violations may, depending on the circumstances, amount to war crimes and/or crimes against humanity.
47. Recruitment of children and their use in hostilities
48. The investigation team documented extensive recruitment and use of children in armed conflict by LTTE over many years, which intensified during the last few months of the conflict, as did reports of recruitment of children under the age of 15. It also gathered information on child recruitment by the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal (TMVP)/Karuna Group after its split from LTTE in 2004. Recruitment of children is a violation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Optional Protocol thereto on the involvement of children in armed conflict, and could also constitute a war crime if proven in a court of law.
49. On the basis of the information gathered by the investigation team, there are reasonable grounds to believe that government security forces may have known that the Karuna Group recruited children in areas under its control. This indicates that the Government may also have violated the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Optional Protocol thereto on the involvement of children in armed conflict to which it is a party, in particular to ensure the protection and care of children affected by armed conflict. The High Commissioner also notes the State’s failure to date to prosecute those responsible, including individuals widely suspected of child recruitment, some of whom have since been appointed to public positions.
50. Impact of hostilities on civilians and civilian objects
51. On the basis of the information in the possession of the investigation team, there are reasonable grounds to believe that many of the attacks reviewed in the present report did not comply with the principles on the conduct of hostilities, notably the principle of distinction.
52. While it may have been permissible for the security forces to target any military objective located in the no-fire zones declared by the Government, these attacks were subject to the rules on conduct of hostilities, including the obligation to take all feasible precaution to avoid or to minimize incidental loss of civilian lives or damage to civilian objects. The presence of large numbers of civilians, including many children, some of them living in flimsy shelters without access to bunkers, constituted an obvious risk that substantial loss of civilian lives and damage to civilian objects in the no-fire zones might ensue as a result of an attack.
53. The investigation team recognized the complexities inherent in conducting military operations against legitimate military targets in or near densely populated areas. Nevertheless, the presence of LTTE cadres participating in hostilities from within the predominantly civilian population did not change the character of the population, nor did it affect the protection that should be afforded to civilians under international humanitarian law. It is important to recall that the obligations of a party to an armed conflict under international humanitarian law are not conditioned on reciprocity. Violations attributable to one of the parties do not justify lack of compliance on the part of the other. While the investigation was not conclusive on the proportionality assessment for each of the incidents reviewed in the present report, the team believes that this matter should be investigated.
54. The team noted with grave concerns the repeated shelling of hospitals in the Vanni. Hospitals and other medical units and personnel enjoy special protection under international humanitarian law, and cannot be made the object of attack. The protection they should enjoy does not cease unless these are used to commit hostile acts, outside their humanitarian function. The recurrence of such shelling despite the fact that the security forces were aware of the exact location of hospitals raises serious doubt that these attacks were accidental. Other civilian facilities in the no-fire zones, in particular humanitarian facilities and food distribution centres, were also affected. The information available to the team indicated that in none of the incidents reviewed were there any grounds that could have reasonably led the security forces to determine that the facilities were being used for military purposes; they therefore maintained their civilian character and should not have been directly targeted. Directing attacks against civilian objects and/or against civilians not taking direct part in hostilities is a serious violation of international humanitarian law and, depending on the circumstances, may amount to a war crime.
55. Another concern is that security forces employed weapons that, when used in densely populated areas, are likely to have indiscriminate effects. This concern is strengthened by the fact that the security forces reportedly had the means to use more accurate weapons and munitions so as to better respect their legal obligations, notably the requirements of distinction and precaution. In addition, the security forces publicly declared that they had means at their disposal, such as real-time images from drones, which would have helped them accurately target military objectives.
56. Another precautionary measure – circumstances permitting – is to issue effective warnings when attacks are likely to affect civilians, leaving them adequate time to evacuate before military operations commence. The team obtained no information indicating that any specific warnings were issued to the civilian population in no-fire zones informing them that military operations were imminent.
57. The investigation team did not find information suggesting that hospitals and other civilian facilities, including those of the United Nations, were used by LTTE for military purposes. The investigations did, however, indicate that LTTE repeatedly constructed military fortifications and positioned artillery and other weaponry in close proximity (and often adjacent) to civilian areas, including humanitarian and medical facilities and the surrounding areas of with a high concentration of displaced persons in no-fire zones, thereby exposing the civilian population to the dangers of the military operations taking place around them, including by placing civilian lives at increased risk from strikes by the Sri Lankan Army. There are therefore reasonable grounds to believe that the conduct of the LTTE violated its obligations under international humanitarian law to take all feasible measures to protect the civilian population and civilian objects against the effects of attacks.
58. Control of movement
59. The findings made by the investigation team indicate that there are reasonable grounds to believe that LTTE had a clear high-level policy of preventing civilians from leaving the Vanni, thereby unlawfully interfering with their freedom of movement. Findings also showed that the policy hardened in January 2009, although the specific instructions on how LTTE cadres should prevent anyone from leaving have yet to be clarified. Nevertheless, the information gathered indicated that a number of individuals, including several children, were shot dead, injured or beaten by LTTE cadres as they tried to leave, in contravention of their right to life and physical integrity. These acts may amount to direct attacks on civilians not taking direct part in hostilities, in violation of international humanitarian law. If established before a court of law, and depending on the circumstances, such conduct may amount to a war crime.
60. By compelling civilians to remain within the area of active hostilities, LTTE also violated its obligation under international humanitarian law to take all feasible measures to protect the civilian population under its control against the effects of attacks from the security forces.
61. Denial of humanitarian assistance
62. The investigation team found that the Government of Sri Lanka placed considerable restrictions on freedom of movement of humanitarian personnel and on humanitarian activities in the Vanni. These restrictions had an impact on the ability of humanitarian organizations and personnel to exercise their functions effectively and to ensure access to relief of civilians in need. According to rule 56 of customary international humanitarian law, such restrictions may only be justified by imperative military necessity.
63. There are reasonable grounds to believe that LTTE also failed to respect its obligations to respect and protect humanitarian relief personnel and not to restrict their freedom of movement.
64. The team found reasonable grounds to believe that the Government knew or had reasons to know the real humanitarian needs of the civilian populations in the concerned areas, including from its own agents on the ground, and nonetheless imposed severe restrictions on the passage of relief and the freedom of movement of humanitarian personnel. This conduct apparently deprived the civilian population in the Vanni of basic foodstuffs and medical supplies essential to survival. If established by a court of law, these acts and omissions point to violations of international humanitarian law, which, depending on the circumstances, may amount to the use of starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare, which is prohibited by rule 53 of customary international humanitarian law. Such conduct, if proven in a court of law and depending on the circumstances, may constitute a war crime.
65. Screening and deprivation of liberty of internally displaced persons
66. The investigation team believes that the internally displaced persons held in Manik Farm and other closed camps were deprived of their liberty for periods far beyond what would have been permissible under international law. Moreover, the material conditions in these closed camps amounted to violations of the rights to health and to an adequate standard of living, including food, water, housing and sanitation. Depending on the circumstances, such conditions may also amount to inhumane and degrading treatment as defined in international human rights law.
67. On the basis of the information in the possession of the team, there are reasonable grounds to believe that internally displaced persons IDPs were treated as suspects and detained because of their Tamil ethnicity and because they had come from territory controlled by LTTE. This conduct may amount to discrimination under international human rights law and, if established by a court of law, may amount to the crime against humanity of persecution.
68. Steps towards accountability and reconciliation
69. As demonstrated in previous reports submitted by OHCHR to the Human Rights Council, recent years have witnessed a total failure of domestic mechanisms credibly to investigate, establish the truth, ensure accountability and provide redress to victims of the serious human rights violations and abuses described above.
70. In the course of its investigation, the team obtained access to the unpublished reports of several domestic investigations, including the Udalagama Commission of 2006 and the Army Court of Inquiry of 2012. The reports confirmed the concerns of OHCHR with regard to their lack of independence and follow-up to their recommendations highlighted in previous reports of OHCHR (see A/HRC/25/23).
71. Since January 2015, President Sirisena and other government figures have struck a very different tone on reconciliation in public statements. On Independence Day, 4 February, the Government issued a special declaration of peace” in three languages in which it expressed sympathy and regret for all the victims of the 30-year armed conflict, and pledged to advance national reconciliation, justice and equality for all citizens”.
72. By a cabinet decision dated 25 March 2015, the Government established a new Office of National Unity and Reconciliation, headed by former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, with a mandate to drive progress on pending issues such as the release of detainees and civilian land occupied by the military. The Government also continued to place emphasis on implementation of the recommendations made by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission.
73. Presidential Commission to Investigate into Complaints regarding Missing Persons
74. At the time of writing, there were indications that the Presidential Commission to Investigate into Complaints regarding Missing Persons appointed by the previous Government had received a further extension to complete its work,[5] despite widespread concerns raised about its credibility and effectiveness. In June 2015, two additional Commissioners were appointed to expedite the hearing of cases. In July, the Government also announced the appointment of a special investigative team to expedite investigation into some cases, although its status is not known.
75. As at 30 June, the Commission had received a total of 16,826 complaints of missing civilians and 5,000 complaints relating to missing members of the security forces; 2,200 complainants were subsequently invited to give testimony at 47 public hearings in different districts.
76. Reports from independent observers and organizations working with families of the disappeared continued to criticize the lack of transparency and public information, the conduct of proceedings, and intimidation and harassment of family members by military and intelligence officials (see A/HRC/27/CRP.2). These concerns were raised with the Government by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances in February 2014 (see A/HRC/WGEID/102/1, paras. 128-138 and A/HRC/WGEID/103/1, para. 157), although they were largely rejected at the time.
77. The Commission presented its first interim report to the President on 10 April 2015 and is reported to have submitted its second; neither report has been published. OHCHR did, however, obtained access to a copy of the first report, which sheds some light on the work of the Commission. The Commission’s analysis of written complaints shows that the security forces accounted for 19 per cent of them, LTTE for 17 per cent, and persons or groups unknown for more than 50 per cent. A larger proportion of LTTE cases appear, however, to have been invited for the public hearings, raising questions of selectivity. It also reported complaints received against paramilitary groups such as the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal /Karuna Group and the Eelam People’s Democratic Party.
78. In its interim report, the Commission recommended further investigation of a number of cases. Significantly, it highlighted 10 cases in which it had identified by name or rank members of the security forces responsible for abductions or disappearances; the status of any further investigation is, however, unknown.
79. Emblematic cases
80. A Committee appointed by the new Government to re-investigate the death of 27 prisoners during a security operation to control a riot at Welikada prison in November 2012 (see A/HRC/25/23, para. 24) found that a number of those killed or injured had not been involved in the riot, and recommended further criminal investigation and compensation.
81. In the case of the killing of protestors by army personnel at Weliwerya in August 2013 (see A/HRC/25/23, para. 23), an investigation conducted by the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka concluded in a report published in 2015 that the deaths of three people, the injury of 36, and the destruction of property indicated the security forces had used excessive force. It also noted the presence of senior officers at the scene, which suggested that the shooting could not have taken place without orders.
82. In a noteworthy development, on 25 June, the Colombo High Court found a former army staff sergeant guilty of the murder of eight Tamil civilians at Mirusuvil, Jaffna District, in 2000; four others charged were acquitted. This is a rare case of a conflict-related violation being successfully prosecuted, and a reminder of the many other such cases have stalled or are pending at various stages of proceedings. While welcome,[6] the case highlights the systemic problems of delays in the Sri Lankan judicial system.
83. With regard to the killing of five students at Trincomalee beachfront in January 2006 and of 17 humanitarian workers of the non-governmental organization Action Contre la Faim in Muttur in August 2006, the Government reported having intensified its investigations, but highlighted the difficulties involved in summoning or interviewing potential witnesses now living abroad.[7] These cases highlight the unfortunate lack of confidence that witnesses have in the State’s domestic process and the absence of witness protection.
84. During the first weeks in office of the new Government, some ministers made public statements about reopening investigations into other prominent cases of human rights violations. In March 2015, three navy personnel and a former police officer were arrested and are on remand in relation to the killing of Nadarajah Raviraj, a Member of Parliament for the Tamil National Alliance, in November 2006, while a fourth suspect is being sought abroad.
85. In August 2015, police announced that they had arrested several military personnel, including two lieutenant colonels, and two former LTTE cadres in relation to the disappearance of journalist and cartoonist Prageeth Eknaligoda.[8]According to State media, the investigation has revealed that Eknaligoda was taken to an army camp in Girithale in North Central province following his abduction on 24 January 2010.[9]
86. The above developments are most welcome, but it is important that the momentum in these cases be sustained and broadened to the many other criminal cases languishing before the courts. The High Commissioner recalls that breakthroughs of this kind have been reported before other sessions of the Human Rights Council, only to stall later on.
87. Mass graves
88. In previous reports, OHCHR highlighted the pending investigations into mass graves that had been discovered in different parts of the country. Developments in 2015 in the investigation into gravesites at Mannar and Matale have highlighted ongoing forensic challenges and possible tampering with evidence.
89. In recent years, many other graves have been found in the former conflict zone, often of persons who died in shelling during the final stages of the conflict. This fact highlights the critical need for greater local capacity and international technical assistance in the field of forensics, particularly forensic anthropology and archaeology. Ensuring the preservation and investigation of sites will be critical to any future criminal investigation and to the identification of missing persons for their families.

VII. Looking ahead

74. The new Government has pledged to deal with accountability issues within the country’s legal framework”.[10] Much of the debate has turned on the type of mechanisms that achieve this, and whether they should be domestic, international or a hybrid of the two. As the Human Rights Council stressed in its resolution 25/1, however, what is needed is a comprehensive approach to transitional justice incorporating the full range of judicial and non-judicial measures”, including individual prosecutions, reparations, truth-seeking, institutional reform and vetting of public employees and officials.
75. The commitment made by the new Government to pursue accountability through a domestic process is commendable, particularly in a context where some political parties and sections of the military and society remain deeply opposed. The unfortunate reality is, however, that the State’s criminal justice system is not yet ready or equipped to conduct an independent and credible investigation into the allegations reported by the investigation team,[11] or to hold accountable those responsible for such violations, as requested by the Council in resolution 25/1.
76. First and foremost is the absence of any reliable system for victim and witness protection, particularly in a context where the risk of reprisals is very high. In February 2015, the Government finally passed a long-pending law on victim and witness protection, although no concrete steps have yet been taken to render it operative. OHCHR has previously highlighted various shortcomings in the law that could compromise the independence and effectiveness of the new system (see A/HRC/27/CRP.2, para. 25). Much will depend on the integrity of appointments to the new witness protection authority, the vetting of police assigned to it, and the resources allocated to make it functional.
77. Second is the inadequacy of the State’s domestic legal framework to deal with international crimes of this magnitude. Sri Lanka has not acceded to several key instruments, notably the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, in particular Additional Protocol II, the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It does not have laws criminalizing enforced disappearances, war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. Its legal framework does not allow individuals to be charged with different forms of liability, in particular command or superior responsibility.
78. In the past, when Sri Lanka has prosecuted conflict-related cases, it has relied on offences in regular criminal law, such as murder. This approach fails to recognize the gravity of the crimes committed, their international character, or to duly acknowledge the harm caused to the victims. It also constrains and undermines prosecution strategies, as it does not follow the chain of responsibility and prosecute those who planned, organized or gave the orders for what may be system crimes.
79. Effective prosecution strategies for large-scale crimes, such as those described by the investigation team,[12] focus on their systemic nature and their planners and organizers. The presumption behind such system crimes” is that they are generally of such a scale that they require some degree of organization to perpetrate them. Even sophisticated legal systems like those in Sri Lanka – which may be well suited to deal with ordinary crimes – may lack the capacity to address system crimes and to bring effective remedy to their victims. This challenge is even greater in an environment where the criminal justice system remains vulnerable to interference and influence by powerful political, security and military actors.
80. Judicial accountability should also be accompanied by broader transitional justice measures, including truth-seeking and reparations, to ensure that the right of victims to redress is realized. In this regard, it will be important that any accountability process in Sri Lanka examine the entire period of conflict and insurgencies dating back to at least the 1970s, not just the last years of the armed conflict.. This will also pre-empt the temptation for accountability measures to be driven by political considerations.
81. The design of any truth-seeking and accountability mechanisms must be pursued through a process of genuine, informed and participatory consultation, especially with victims and their families. New mechanisms should not be established under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, which has systematically failed to deliver results; new, purpose-specific legislation will therefore be required.
82. The third challenge is the degree to which the State’s security sector and justice system have been distorted and corrupted by decades of emergency, conflict and impunity. For years, political interference by the executive with the judiciary has become routine, as demonstrated in many of the cases investigated in the present report. The independence and integrity of key institutions such as the Attorney General’s Office and the Human Rights Commission remain compromised.
83. The security forces, police and intelligence services have enjoyed near total impunity and have not undergone any significant downsizing or reform since the armed conflict. The Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Public Security Ordinance Act both remain in force. The military retains an oppressive presence in the war-affected areas of the north and east, still occupying extensive private land, expanding into commercial economic activities and maintaining a culture of surveillance and harassment of the local population and civil society.
84. Without far-reaching institutional and legal reform, there can be no guarantee of non-recurrence. Sadly, the history of Sri Lanka includes moments where Governments pledged to turn the page and end such practices as enforced disappearances, but the failure to address impunity and root out the deep structures that had perpetrated such abuses meant the white vans” could be reactivated when needed.
85. Against this backdrop, the High Commissioner believes that the Government of Sri Lanka will need to embark on fundamental reforms of the security sector and justice system, including a full-fledged vetting process to remove from office security forces personnel and public officials suspected of involvement in human rights violations, before it can hope to achieve a credible domestic accountability process and hope to achieve reconciliation.

VIII. Conclusions and recommendations

86. The findings of the OHCHR investigation contained in the present report were born out of the past failure of the Government of Sri Lanka to address accountability for the most serious human rights violations and crimes. Ending the impunity enjoyed by the security forces and associated paramilitary groups, and holding to account surviving members of LTTE, will require political will and concerted efforts to ensure that these violations and crimes do not recur.
87. The commitments made by the new Government in this respect are welcome, but it needs to convince a very sceptical audience – Sri Lankan and international – that it is determined to show results. Prosecuting a few emblematic cases will not be sufficient; Sri Lanka needs to address the patterns of serious human rights violations and other international crimes that have caused such suffering for all communities over decades if it is to prevent them from haunting its future.
88. 88. The High Commissioner remains convinced that, for accountability to be achieved in Sri Lanka, it will require more than a domestic mechanism. Sri Lanka should draw on the lessons learned and good practices of other States that have succeeded with hybrid special courts, integrating international judges, prosecutors, lawyers and investigators. Such a mechanism will be essential to give confidence to all Sri Lankans, in particular the victims, in the independence and impartiality of the process, particularly given the politicization and highly polarized environment in Sri Lanka. OHCHR stands ready to continue to provide its advice and technical assistance in the design of such a mechanism.
89. The High Commissioner also believes that the Human Rights Council has played – and should continue to play – a critically important role in encouraging progress on accountability and reconciliation in Sri Lanka. As the process now moves into a new stage, he urges Council members to sustain their monitoring of developments in Sri Lanka with a view to further actions that may be required at the international level should concrete results not be achieved.
90. In particular, the High Commissioner wishes to highlight the following recommendations below.[13]
91. Government of Sri Lanka
92. General
93. The High Commissioner recommends that the Government of Sri Lanka:

       (a)           Set up a high-level executive group to develop a coordinated, time-bound plan and oversee progress in implementing the recommendations contained in the present and previous reports of the High Commissioner submitted to the Human Rights Council, as well as relevant outstanding recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission and past commissions of inquiry;

       (b)           Invite OHCHR to establish a full-fledged country presence to monitor the situation of human rights, advise on implementation of the recommendations made by the High Commissioner and the Human Rights Council in its resolutions and to provide technical assistance;

       (c)           Initiate genuine consultations on transitional justice, in particular truth-seeking and accountability mechanisms, reparations and memorialization, with the public, victims and witness groups, civil society and other stakeholders; these should be accompanied by public education programmes that ensure informed participation in the process;

       (d)           Invite the Special Rapporteur on truth, justice, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence to continue his engagement in accompanying and providing advice in this process, and invite other relevant Special Representatives of the Secretary-General and special procedure mandate holders, in particular the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, to make early country visits.[14]

2. Institutional reforms

       (e)           Through the Constitutional Council, appoint qualified new members to the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka of the utmost independence and integrity, and review legislation to strengthen the Commission’s independence and its capacity to refer cases to the courts;

       (f)            Issue clear, public and unequivocal instructions to all branches of the military and security forces that torture, rape, sexual violence and other human rights violations are prohibited and that those responsible, both directly or as commander or superior, will be investigated and punished; and order an end to all surveillance, harassment and reprisals against human rights defenders;

       (g)           Develop a full-fledged vetting process respecting due process to remove from office military and security force personnel and any other public official where there are reasonable grounds to believe that they have been involved in human rights violations;

       (h)           Prioritize the return of private land that has been occupied by the military and end military involvement in civilian activities;

       (i)            Take immediate steps to identify and disarm groups affiliated with political parties, and sever their linkages with the security forces, intelligence services and other government authorities;

       (j)            Initiate a high-level review of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and its regulations and the Public Security Ordinance Act with a view to their repeal and the formulation of a new national security framework fully compliant with international law;

3. Justice

(k)           Review the Victim and Witness Protection Act with a view to incorporating better safeguards for the independence and effectiveness of the witness protection programme in accordance with international standards; ensure the independence and integrity of those appointed to the Witness Protection Authority and that the police personnel assigned to the programme are fully vetted; and ensure adequate resources for the witness protection system;

       (l)            Accede to the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court;

       (m)          Enact legislation to criminalize war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and enforced disappearances without statutes of limitation; and enact various modes of criminal liability, in particular command or superior responsibility;

       (n)           Adopt specific legislation establishing an ad hoc hybrid special court, integrating international judges, prosecutors, lawyers and investigators, mandated to try war crimes and crimes against humanity, with its own independent investigative and prosecuting organ, defence office and witness and victims protection programme, and provide it with the resources necessary for it to be able try those responsible to promptly and effectively;

       (o)           Carry out a comprehensive mapping of all criminal investigations, habeas corpus and fundamental rights petitions relating to serious human rights violations, and of the findings of all commissions of inquiries where they have identified specific cases, and refer these cases to the special court upon its establishment;

       (p)           Reinforce the forensic capacity of the judiciary and ensure that it is adequately resourced, including for DNA testing, forensic anthropology and archaeology;

       (q)           Review all cases of detainees held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and either release them or immediately bring them to trial; and review the cases of those convicted under the Act and serving long sentences, particularly where convictions were based on confessions extracted under torture;

4. Truth/right to know

       (r)           Dispense with the current Presidential Commission on Missing Persons and transfer its cases to a credible and independent institution developed in consultation with families of the disappeared;

       (s)            Develop a central database of all detainees, with independent verification, where relatives may obtain information of the whereabouts of family members detained, and publish a list of all detention centres;

       (t)            Publish all unpublished reports of the many human rights-related commissions of inquiry, the Presidential Commission on the Missing and the Army Court of Inquiry into civilian casualties;

       (u)           Develop a comprehensive plan/mechanism for preserving all existing records and documentation relating to human rights violations, whether held by public or by private institutions;

5. Reparations

       (v)           Develop a national reparations policy that takes into account the specific needs of women and children, and make adequate provision from the State budget;

       (w)          Strengthen programmes of psychosocial support for victims.

1. United Nations system and Member States
2. The High Commissioner recommends that the United Nations system and Member States:

       (a)           Provide technical and financial support for the development of transitional justice mechanisms, provided that they meet international standards; and set up a coordination mechanism among donors in Sri Lanka to ensure focused and concerted efforts to support the transitional justice process;

       (b)           Apply stringent vetting procedures to Sri Lankan police and military personnel identified for peacekeeping, military exchanges and training programmes;

       (c)           Wherever possible, in particular under universal jurisdiction, investigate and prosecute those responsible for such violations as torture, war crimes and crimes against humanity;

       (d)           Ensure a policy of non-refoulement of Tamils who have suffered torture and other human rights violations until guarantees of non-recurrence are sufficient to ensure that they will not be subject to further abuse, in particular torture and sexual violence;

       (e)           Continue to monitor human rights developments and progress towards accountability and reconciliation through the Human Rights Council; if insufficient progress is made, the Council should consider further international action to ensure accountability for international crimes.

from:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session30/Documents/A_HRC_30_61_ENG.docx

*                        * Late submission. For detailed findings of the investigation by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on Sri Lanka, see document A/HRC/30/CRP.2.

[1]                        Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2012/13, preliminary report, Department of Census and Statistics, Ministry of Finance and Planning, Sri Lanka.

[2]                        Freedom from Torture, Tainted Peace: Torture in Sri Lanka since May 2009”, August 2015.

[3]                        See Secretariat for Muslims (http://secretariatformuslims.org/).

[4]                        See National Christian Evangelical Alliance, incident reports (http://nceasl.org/category/incident-reports/)

[5]                        In 2014, the beginning of the period covered by the Commission was extended back from 1 June 1990 to 1 January 1983.

[6]                        The High Commissioner points out his opposition to the death penalty handed down in the case, and the current status of Sri Lanka as a de facto abolitionist State.

[7]                        According to the Government, in the case of Action Contre la Faim, the Criminal Investigation Department has recorded statements of 18 military personnel since January 2015 and a further 22 are to be interviewed. The Department wishes to interview two key witnesses believed to be living in France. In the Trincomalee case, the prosecution has presented the depositions of 25 witnesses, while eight other witnesses are being sought from overseas. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for 7 December 2015.

[8]                        CID arrests four Army officers”, Daily News, 25 August 2015.

[9]                        Sgt. Major confesses to grilling Eneligoda”, Daily News, 11 August 2015.

[10]                       See the election manifesto of the United National Front for Good Governance, available from www.colombotelegraph.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Election-held-LAA.xls-.pdf.

[11]                       See A/HRC/30/CRP.2.

[12]                                              Ibid.

[13]                       See also A/HRC/30/CRP.2.

[14]                       See also A/HRC/30/CRP.2, p. 248, recommendations.

<<ODS JOB NO>>N1521990E<<ODS JOB NO>>

<<ODS DOC SYMBOL1>>A/HRC/30/61<<ODS DOC SYMBOL1>>

<<ODS DOC SYMBOL2>><<ODS DOC SYMBOL2>>

Desarasa

Today (2015.10.08), when Hon Dinesh Gunawardena, MP, raised a matter of “public interest” (transferring of permanent employees of Central Bank who had given hard evidence to parliament on the infamous bond scandal under good governance in February 2015) under section #17 of Standing Orders in Sri Lanka Parliament (Mr Gunawardena is one of the senior most MPs with over 30 years of experience in Parliamentary tradition & practice), the Speaker did not allow it even to be mentioned in Parliament and went further by adjourning Parliament sittings.

issue:

under the guise of “regular transfers” close to some 200 Central Bank employees had been given transfers for giving evidence on the “half-a-billion dollar bond scandal” reported during good governance in Feb 2015. there was a COPE committee appointed to investigate on the matter during the previous Parliament, but the report was not allowed to be table in parliament.

decision:

the decision for the Speaker to make was whether the above matter was of public interest or not. the speaker announced it is not.

MPs with backbone:

then 21 MPs in the real opposition rose to their feet under Standing Orders of SL Parliament and supported Hon Gunawardena. hence the Speaker had no option but allow Hon Gunawardena to read only the draft of the matter. which was readout in parliament by Hon Dinesh Gunawardena.

Thanks:

we would like to out & loud thank and appreciate a large section of Central Bank staff, their families and the General Public for the thousands of appreciations and wishes sent our way.

This weekend, a US airstrike claimed the lives of ten humanitarians from Doctors Without Borders and 12 patients — including three children.

Sign the Petition

The staff came from all over the world, offering their time and talents to heal the people of Afghanistan’s war-torn Kunduz province. Patients journeyed from miles away for medical and surgical care they could get nowhere else in the region.

This was a tragic loss of life. Demand an independent international investigation to find out the truth about the US bombing of Doctors Without Borders’ hospital.

On Saturday, US planes repeatedly bombed Doctors Without Borders’ medical center in northern Afghanistan. Heman Nagarathnam, who leads Doctors Without Borders programs in northern Afghanistan, described the terrifying scene:

“The bombs hit and then we heard the plane circle round. There was a pause, and then more bombs hit. This happened again and again.

“When I made it out from the office, the main hospital building was engulfed in flames. Those people that could had moved quickly to the building’s two bunkers to seek safety. But patients who were unable to escape burned to death as they lay in their beds.”

International humanitarian law recognizes hospitals in conflict zones as safe places. Deliberately bombing a hospital without evidence of any enemy combatants inside is a war crime.

Yesterday, the head of US forces in Afghanistan told US Senators that the airstrike “mistakenly struck” the building. But Doctors Without Borders says that the facility’s purpose was well-communicated to US and Afghan officials before and during the attack.

Staff and patients should have been safe in the hospital. Help find out what went so horribly wrong.

An investigation into whether the United States has committed a serious crime cannot be run by the US. That’s why we are demanding an impartial, international investigation.

The families of these victims deserve the truth. Tell the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the United Nations to launch an independent investigation of the airstrike right now.

With gratitude,

Chris B.
The Care2 Petitions Team

Citizens Electoral Council of Australia Media Release  Friday, 9 October 2015

If Islamic State inspired 15-year-old Farhad Khalil Mohammad Jabar to kill NSW Police accountant Curtis Cheng on 2 October, then the deadly consequences of recent Australian government foreign policy have now blown back onto the Australian people.

Islamic State has not emerged as a backlash against Australia and our leading allies; it is the synthetic creation of our closest allies, with our government’s support.

US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) documents from 2012 prove that Australia’s closest allies, the United States and the United Kingdom, along with France, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, knowingly fostered the rise of the Islamic State horror in Iraq and Syria, in order to achieve their regime change goal of overthrowing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The 12 August 2012 DIA document (released on 18 May 2015 under a Freedom of Information request by Judicial Watch) reads:

Opposition forces [to Assad] are trying to control the Eastern areas adjacent to the Western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar), in addition to neighbouring Turkish borders. Western countries [US, UK, France], the Gulf States and Turkey are supporting these efforts… If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality [Islamic State] in Eastern Syria and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition [US et al.] want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime….” (Emphasis added.) Beginning with Kevin Rudd, successive Australian governments fully supported the Anglo-American regime change objective; by extension, they at least condoned the unleashing of a dark-ages death cult” to achieve it.

Now Russia has intervened—at the invitation of Syria and therefore legally under international law—to destroy ISIS and the other extreme Islamist jihadists such as the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Al Nusra Front, and who is screaming the loudest? The very governments identified in the DIA documents as responsible for ISIS in the first place: the US, UK, France and Saudi Arabia.

(Interestingly, Turkey, which is also named in the DIA documents, and which the western media is reporting is hostile to Russia for flying over its territory, is actually contradicting the media and insisting that Turkey-Russia relations are very good and that Russia’s intervention won’t lead to conflict between the two nations. Other nations impacted by ISIS, including Iran and America’s client-state Iraq, are enthusiastic about Russia’s intervention. European nations which are struggling to deal with the flood of refugees from Syria also acknowledge that Russia’s action is right.)

In 10 days Russia has successfully hit more than 100 ISIS locations, including a bomb-making facility, command posts and munitions depots. Contrary to the propaganda claims of the western media, the Russians are using very precise intelligence and precise targeting, using the most advanced technology. ISIS has been taken by complete surprise: there is panic in the ISIS strongholds and 600 ISIS jihadists are known to have fled their Raqqa headquarters. One ISIS complaint is that the US-led coalition bombings only occurred at dawn, but the Russians are engaging targets day and night, in any weather.

Vladimir Putin’s intervention has completely outflanked Barack Obama and his re-badged neo-con agenda; the US President is decrying Russia’s success against ISIS, and condemning Russia for attacking the mythical moderates” among the Syrian opposition, because they are his forces in his drive to overthrow Assad. Obama’s sometime foreign policy adviser Tony Blair—the war criminal who is the intellectual author of the regime change agenda that has destroyed the Middle East, in order to permanently end the principle of national sovereignty enshrined in the Treaty of Westphalia, the cornerstone of international law—is also howling. In their desperation to maintain Anglo-American global hegemony militarily even as the financial power of the City of London and Wall Street implodes, they had planned Syria as their next target in a series of regime changes that they fantasised would end with Russia and China, but which would have definitely ended in global thermonuclear war.

The Australian people should welcome this reversal of Islamic State’s fortune, and demand our government do the same. More fundamentally, if we are serious about defeating the terrorism that we fear is rearing its head in Australia, we should demand that our government break with the imperial strategies of our allies who have consciously fostered and supported such terrorism for their geopolitical agenda. Finally, we should demand that our government collaborate with the BRICS alliance of nations—Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa—which are leading the push for a new international economic order that both respects national sovereignty and fosters peace through encouraging nations to cooperate on great economic development projects, such as China’s vision for a New Silk Road and Maritime Silk Road.

Robert Bridge Courtesy RT

Robert Bridge has worked as a writer and journalist in Russia since 1998. His articles have been featured in a number of publications, including Russia in Global Affairs, Drudge Report, Russia Insider and Infowars.com. Bridge is the author of the book, Midnight in the American Empire”, which was released in 2013.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

හේමන්ත රන්දුණු Courtesy Divaina

“සුදු දුවේ උඹට මොකද වෙලා තියෙන්නෙ. උඹ මොකාට හරි බය වුණාද, එහෙමත් නැතිනම් උඹට අසනීපයක්‌ද?”

පුංචි දිනිතිගේ හැසිරීමේ කිසියම් වෙනසක්‌ දුටු ඇගේ මව ඒ පිළිබඳව ඇගෙන් විමසුවාය. එහෙත් දියණියගෙන් ඊට පිළිතුරක්‌ නැත. ඇය එදින කාලය ගත කළේ කිසියම් චකිතයකින්ය. වෙනදා මෙන් ඇය කෙළි සෙල්ලම් කළේද නැත

වරක්‌ ඇය නිවස තුළ වූ පැදුරු ගොඩේ සැඟවී සිටියාය. තවත් වරෙක නිවස අසල මල් පඳුරක්‌ යට වකුටු වී උන්නාය. දිනිතිගේ මේ හැසිරීමෙන් දෘශ්‍යමාන වූ වෙනස ගැන සොයා බලන්නට තරම් දැනීමක්‌ ඇගේ මවට තිබුණේ නැත.

තබ්බෝව කරුවලගස්‌වැව පහරිය ප්‍රදේශයේ පදිංචිව සිටි දිනිති අහිංසා දැරිය තුන් හැවිරිදිය. සොහොයුරියන් දෙදෙනකුගෙන් යුත් පවුලේ බඩ පිස්‌සී වුණේ දිනිතිය. පවුලේ කවුරුත් ඇයට සුරතලයට කීවේ සුදු බබා කියාය.

දිනිතිගේ පියා ලලිත් හර්ෂ කුමාර කරුවලගස්‌වැව ප්‍රදේශයේ කුෂන් වැඩපළක සේවය කළේය. දරු තිදෙනා බලා කියාගෙන නිවසට වී සිටි දිනිතිගේ මව රැකියාවක්‌ නොකළාය.

ලලිත් හර්ෂ කුමාර මහා ලොකු ආදායමක්‌ නොලැබුවද මේ පවුල කාලය ගත කළේ බොහොම සතුටින්ය. පුංචි දිනිති තම පියාට දැඩි ලෙන්ගතුකමක්‌ දැක්‌වූවාය. ඇය නින්දට ගියේද පියා සමඟය. නිවසේ සිටින වේලාවෙන් වැඩි කාලයක්‌ දිනිති සමඟ ගත කිරීමට ලලිත් හර්ෂ කුමාරට සිදු වූයේ ඇය තමන් කෙරෙහි දැක්‌වූ දැඩි ලෙන්ගතුකම නිසාය.

දිනිතිගේ පුංචි නිවහන තිබුණේ තබ්බෝව රක්‍ෂිතය ආසන්නයේය. වන අලින්ගෙන් ගහන වූ තබ්බෝව රක්‍ෂිතය තුළ සවස 4.00 න් පසු කිසිදු ගම්වාසියකු ඇතුළු වුණේ නැත.

පසුගිය සැප්තැම්බර් මස 29 වැනිදා උදේ කාලය ගෙවී ගියේ සාමාන්‍ය ලෙසය. එහෙත් දිනිතිගේ හැසිරීම අසාමාන්‍ය විය. එදින සවස 3.30 පමණ වන විට දිනිතිගේ මව රාත්‍රි ආහාර පිළිsයෙල කරමින් උන්නාය.

රැකියාව නිමකර නිවසට පැමිණි ලලිත් හර්ෂ කුමාර පහරිය වැව දෙසට ගියේ රාත්‍රි බතට මසුන් අල්ලාගෙන එන බලාපොරොත්තු ඇතිවය.

පුංචි දිනිති නිවස ඉදිරිපිට මිදුලේ නිසොල්මන්ව සිටියාය. ලලිත්ගේ වැඩිමහල් සොහොයුරු පදිංචිව සිටියේ ඔහුගේ නිවසට යාබදව දකුණු පසින් වූ නිවසකය.

ඔහුට සිටියේද අවුරුදු 11 ක දියණියකි. පුංචි දිනිති තම නිවස ඉදිරිපිට වැලි පාර ඔස්‌සේ තනිවම ගමන් කරන අයුරු දුටු ඇගේ ලොකු අම්මා ඒ ගැන විමසිලිමත් වූවාය.

දුවේ සුදු බබා තනියම පාරේ යනවා. ගිහින් එයාව කැන්දගෙන වරෙන්. දිනිතිගේ ලොකු අම්මා තම දියණියට කීවාය. ඒ සැණින් ඇය දිනිති ගිය මාර්ගය දෙසට දිව ගියාය. එහෙත් දිනිති මාර්ගයේ පෙනෙන්නට නැත. ඇය සිය ඥති සොහොයුරිය පිළිබඳව විපරම් කළාය.

අම්මේ දිනිති නංගි පේන්න නැහැ. ඒ ටිකට එයා අන්ත්‍රස්‌දාන වෙලා.

ඥති සොහොයුරිය සිය මවට කීවාය. ඉන් කලබලයට පත්වූ දිනිතිගේ ලොකු අම්මා නිවසින් පිටතට පැමිණ ඇය ගිය මාර්ගය පිරික්‌සන්නට වූවාය. එහෙත් ඇය ගැන කිසිදු සේයාවක්‌ නැත.

නංගියේ සුදු බබා මේ පාර දිගේ ගියා. අපි එයාව බලන්න ආවා. ඒත් එයා ගිය දිසාවක්‌ සොයා ගන්න නැහැ.

පහරිය ගම්මානය ගිනි ගත්තේ එතැන් සිටය. සුදු බබා සොයමින් ගම්මුන් පහරිය ප්‍රදේශය පීරන්නට වූහ. මාළු ඇල්ලීමට වැවට ගිය ලලිත් හර්ෂ කුමාර නිවසට එන්නේ අසිහියෙන්ය.

“අනේ මගේ රත්තරන් දුවට මොකද වුණේ. කවුද මගේ කෙළි පැටික්‌කි අරගෙන ගියේ.”

දිනිතිගේ පියා ගම දෙවනත් කරන්නට වූවේය. එදින රෑබෝවන තුරුම පහරිය ගම්වාසීන් දිනිති සොයන්නට වූහ. එහෙත් ඇය පිළිබඳ කිසිදු හෝඩුවාවක්‌ නැත.

දිනිතිගේ පියා පොලිසියේ උදව් උපකාර ගන්නට කරුවලගස්‌වැව පොලිසිය වෙත දිවයන්නේ ඉන් පසුවය.

අනේ බුදු සර් මගේ දරු පැටිය හොයල දෙන්aන. මට මේ දරුව නැතිව ජීවත් වෙලා වැඩක්‌ නැහැ.

ලලිත් හර්ෂ කුමාර කරුවලගස්‌වැව පොලිස්‌ ස්‌ථානාධිපති නුවන් පෙරේරා ඉදිරියේ වැඳ වැටුණේය. පුංචි දිනිතිගේ හදිසි අතුරුදන්වීම ඇසූ පොලිස්‌ ස්‌ථානාධිපතිවරයා ද අන්දුන්කුන්දුන් වුණේය.

පසුගිය කාල සීමාව පුරාම රටේ අසන්නට ලැබුණේ කුඩා දරුවන්ට අත්වූ ෙ€දනීය සිදුවීම් පිළිබඳ තොරතුරුය.

“ඔයා කිසි දේකට බය වෙන්න එපා. මම පුංචි දරුවව කොහොම හරි හොයලා දෙන්න පොරොන්දු වෙනවා. අපි දැන්මම ක්‍රියාත්මක වෙනවා….

පොලිස්‌ ස්‌ථානාධිපති නුවන් පෙරේරා දිනිතිගේ පියා සනසමින් කීවේය. කරුවලගස්‌වැව සහකාර පොලිස්‌ අධිකාරිවරයා ලෙස කටයුතු කළේ ජයන්ත නානායක්‌කාරය.

දිනිතිගේ අතුරුදන්වීම පිළිබඳව ස්‌ථානාධිපතිවරයා තම ජ්‍යෙෂ්ඨ නිලධාරියා දැනුවත් කළේය.

ඔයා ටීම් එකක්‌ අරගෙන වහාම පහරිය ගමට යන්න. අපි පමා වෙන හැම තප්පරයක්‌ම දරුවාගේ ජීවිතේ අනතුරට ලක්‌ වෙන්න පුළුවන්. අපි පුළුවන් තරම් ඉක්‌මනට සර්ච් ඔපරේෂන් එකක්‌ පටන් ගන්න ඕනෙ.

සහකාර පොලිස්‌ අධිකාරි ජයන්ත නානායක්‌කාර මහතා දැරිය සෙවීමට අවශ්‍ය සියලු උපදෙස්‌ නුවන් පෙරේරාට ලබා දුන්නේය. ඒ වන විට පුත්තලම ජ්‍යෙෂ්ඨ පොලිස්‌ අධිකාරි නීතිඥ සෙනරත් සඳුන්ගහවත්ත ද මේ බව දැන සිටියේය. දැරිය සෙවීමේ කටයුතු වහාම ක්‍රියාත්මක කරන ලෙසද ඔහුගෙන් උපදෙස්‌ ලැබුණේය. පොලිස්‌ නිලධාරීන් පහරිය ගම්මානයට යද්දී ගම්වාසීන් දෙතුන් සියයක්‌ දිනිතිගේ නිවස අසල රැස්‌ව සිටියහ.

“සර් අපි මුළු ගමම පීරුවා. ඒත් දරුව ගැන කිසිම හෝඩුවාවක්‌ නැහැ. දැන් ඉතිරිවෙලා තියෙන්නෙ තබ්බෝව රක්‍ෂිතය බලන එක විතරයි. ඒත් මේ වෙලාවෙ කැලේට යනවා කියන්නෙ මරණය දෝතින් අරගෙන යනව වගේ වැඩක්‌.

ගම්වාසීන් පොලිස්‌ ස්‌ථානාධිපතිවරයාට ඇතිවී තිබෙන තත්ත්වය පැහැදිලිකර දුන්හ.

“දරුවා තාත්තා එක්‌ක නිතර නිතර වැව ළඟට යන්න පුරුදු වෙලා හිටිය නිසා එයා වැවට ගියාද දන්නෙ නෑ. කෝකටත් අපි මේ මොහොතෙ ඉඳලමදරුවා හොයන වැඩේට බහින්න ඕනෙ. එක තත්පරයක්‌වත් අපතේ අරින්න බැහැ.

ස්‌ථානාධිපති නුවන් පෙරේරා ගම්වාසීන් උනන්දු කරමින් කීවේය. එහෙත් දැරිය සොයා තබ්බෝව රක්‍ෂිතයට ඇතුළුවීමට කිසිවකුත් ඉදිරිපත් වුණේ නැත.

සර් සවස හතරෙන් පස්‌සෙ වන අලි සැරිසරනව. අලි හැට හැත්තෑවක්‌ මේ අවට ඉන්නවා. ඒ මදිවට නයි පොළොන්ගු විමානෙ. හැම තැනම පිඹුරො ඉන්නව. දඩයක්‌කාරයො තුවක්‌කු බැඳලා… රාත්‍රි කාලයේ තබ්බෝව රක්‍ෂිතයට ඇතුළුවීමේ භයානක කම ගැන ගම්වාසීන් පැහැදිලිs කරන්නට වූහ.

අපි කණ්‌ඩායම් තුනකට බෙදිලා තුන් පැත්තකින් දරුව සොයමු. මේ වැඩේ ඉක්‌මන් නොකළොත් හෙට උදේ අපිට හොයාගන්න වෙන්නෙ දරුවගෙ මළකඳ.

නුවන් පෙරේරා ගම්වාසීන් පිරිසක්‌ ද කැටිව පහරිය වැව ප්‍රදේශය පරීක්‍ෂා කරන්නට පිටත් වූහ.

පොලිස්‌ කොස්‌තාපල්වරුන් වන අමිල දිසානායක, කරුණාරත්න, දයාරත්න ඇතුළු ගම්වාසීන් පිරිසක්‌ තබ්බෝව වනාන්තරයට ඇතුළු වුණේ කෙසේ හෝ දරුවා සොයා ගන්නා බලාපොරොත්තු ඇතිවය.

මම වැව පැත්ත සර්ච් කරලා ඒ පැත්තෙන් කැලෑවට ඇතුළු වෙන්නම්. මට ලොකු සැකයක්‌ තියනවා ළමයා තාත්තා හොයාගෙන වැව ළඟට යන්න ඇති කියලා. එහෙම වුණොත් ලොකු විනාශයක්‌ වෙන්නෙ.

ස්‌ථානාධිපති නුවන් පෙරේරා තම නිලධාරීන් සහ ගම්වාසීන් සමඟ දැරිය සෙවීමේ මෙහෙයුම ආරම්භ කළේය.

තබ්බෝව රක්‍ෂිතය රාත්‍රි කාලයේදී අති බිහිසුණුය. කැලෑ කැපිය හැකි ගන අන්ධකාරය ඒ බිහිසුණු බව දෙගුණ තෙගුණ කරයි. එහෙත් ඒ සියල්ල අමතක කළ පොලිස්‌ නිලධාරීන් සහ ගම්වාසීන් පුංචි දිනිති සොයා කැලෑව පීරන්නට වූහ.

ගන අන්ධකාරය මැදින් තබ්බෝව රක්‍ෂිතය තුළට ගමන් කිරීම අති දුෂ්කරය. ඉදිරියට තබන සෑම පියවරක්‌ම බිහිසුණුය.

සර්… සර්.. මේ ඇළ ඉවුර දිගට පොඩි දරුවකුගේ අඩි සලකුණු තියෙනවා.

ගැමියකු ප්‍රීතියෙන් කෑගසන්නට වූවේය. පුංචි දිනිති දැරිය ගමන් කළ බවට සැකකරන පා සලකුණු තබ්බෝව වනය මධ්‍යයේ පිහිටි ඇළ ඉවුරක වැලි පොළොවේ කදිමට සටහන්ව තිබුණේය. දැරිය පිළිබඳව කිසියම් හෝඩුවාවක්‌ සොයා ගැනීමට ලැබීම කාගේත් සිත්වලට ගෙන දුන්නේ සතුටකි. නව ජවයකින් යුතුව ඔවුන් සියලු දෙනා ඒ අඩි සලකුණු ඔස්‌සේ ඉදිරියට ගමන් කරන්නට වූහ.

සර් දරුවා ඇළෙන් එගොඩ වෙලා තියෙනවා. ඇළෙන් එහා පැත්තේ වැලි පොළොවෙ දරුවගේ අඩි සලකුණු තියෙනවා.

ගම්වැසියකු පොලිස්‌ නිලධාරින්ට කීවේය. සියලු දෙනා ඇළ තරණය කරන්නට වූහ. ඇලේ ජල මට්‌ටම පොලිස්‌ නිලධාරීන්ගේ දණහිසෙන් ඉහළ කොටස දක්‌වා සටහන් විය.

දරුවා මේ ඇළ හරහා කොහොම ගියාද? අඩුම ගානෙ එයාගෙ කරවටක්‌ වතුරෙ ගිලෙනවා.

ගන වනාන්තරය මැදින් රාත්‍රි කාලයේ දැරිය ගමන් කළ ආකාරය ගැන කිසිවකුටත් සිතාගත නොහැක. දැරියගේ පා සලකුණු ඔස්‌සේ ගමන් ගත් පොලිස්‌ නිලධාරීන් සහ ගම්වාසීන් ගල් තලාවක්‌ අසල නතර වූහ. ඇතැම් ස්‌ථානවලදී දරුවා දිවගිය බවට පා සටහන් සලකුණු දක්‌නට ලැබිණි.

මෙතැනින් එහාට දරුව ගිය දිශාව හොයා ගන්න අමාරුයි. අපි දැන් මොකද කරන්නෙ.

මහා වනාන්තරය තුළ අතුරුදන් වූ පුංචි කෙළි පැටික්‌කිය සොයන ආකාරය ගැන කවුරුත් කල්පනා කරන්නට වූහ.

දැරියගේ පා සටහන් හමුවූ බවත් ඒ ඔස්‌සේ තවත් ඉදිරියට ගමන් කරන බවත් පොලිස්‌ නිලධාරීන් කරුවලගස්‌වැව පොලිස්‌ ස්‌ථානාධිපති නුවන් පෙරේරාට දැනුම් දී තිබුණි.

ගන වනාන්තරය තුළ ජංගම දුරකථන පණිවුඩ හුවමාරුව ක්‍රියාත්මක වීම මහත් භාග්‍යයක්‌ විය. ඒ තොරතුරු මත වැව ඉවුරේ දැරිය සෙවීමේ කටයුතු නතර කළ නුවන් පෙරේරා ඇතුළු පිරිස තබ්බෝව වනාන්තරය තුළට එන්නට පිටත් වූයේ දැරිය කෙසේ හෝ සොයා ගන්නා අරමුණ ඇතිවය.

ඒ වන විට මධ්‍යම රාත්‍රියට ආසන්න වෙමින් තිබිණි. දැරිය සෙවීමේ භාරධුර වෙහෙසකර කාර්යයට එක්‌ව සිටි පිරිස දැඩි සේ විඩාවට පත්ව සිටියහ.

මේ කැලේ කොහේ කියල දරුවා සොයන්නද? අපි ආපහු ගිහින් හෙට උදේ ඇවිත් හොයමු. අනික මේ කැලේ ඇතුළෙ දරුවා ජීවතුන් අතර ඉන්නවා කියලා හිතන්නත් අමාරුයි.

ගම්වාසීන් පිරිසක්‌ දිනිති දැරිය සෙවීමේ කටයුතු අතරමග නතර කර දමා ආපසු පහරිය ගමට එන්නට පිටත් වූහ.

ඒ වන විට පහරිය ගම්මානයේ තවත් පිරිසක්‌ අදෘශ්‍යමාන බලවේගවල සහාය සොයා යමින් සිටියහ.

පහරිය කාලි දේවාලය වෙත ගිය පිරිසක්‌ එහි සිටින මෑණියන් ලවා අතුරුදන් වූ දැරිය පිළිබඳව හෝඩුවාවක්‌ ලබා ගන්නට උත්සාහ කරන්නට වූහ.

මෙවැනි සිදුවීම්වලදී බොහෝ විට යොදා ගන්නේ අංජනම් බැලීමය. කාලි දේවාලයේ මෑණියන් අංජනමක්‌ යවමින් දැරිය පිළිබඳ තොරතුරු සොයන්නට වූවාය.

දරුවා කැලෑව ඇතුළෙ ඉන්නවා. ඒත් එයාගෙ ජීවිතේ අනතුරේ. ප්‍රමාද වුණොත් එයාව බේරගන්න ලැබෙන එකක්‌ නැහැ. කැලේ ඇතුළෙ ගල් තලාවක්‌ තියෙනවා. ඒ ගල් තලාවට නැගෙනහිර පැත්තට කිලෝ මීටර් දෙක තුනක්‌ යනකොට වැවක්‌ හම්බවෙනවා. ඒ වැව ආසන්නයේ කටු පඳුරක්‌ ළඟ දරුවා ඉන්නවා.

අංජනම බැලූ දේවාලයේ මෑණියන් දිනිති දැරිය සිටින ස්‌ථානය පිළිබඳ කියන්නට වූවාය.

හැබැයි කාන්තාවක්‌ මේ දරුවා ළඟට යන්න ඕනෙ. පිරිමි කෙනෙක්‌ ගියොත් එයාව ගන්න ලැබෙන එකක්‌ නැහැ. දැනටමත් ප්‍රමාද වැඩියි.

අංජනම අනුව වහාම ක්‍රියාත්මක වූ ගම්වාසීන් දිනිති දැරිය සොයා එම ප්‍රදේශයට යන්නට සූදානම් වූහ. දැරිය සොයා යන පිරිසගේ ආරක්‍ෂාවට දේවාලයෙන් මැතිරූ පොල් ගෙඩියක්‌ සහ දෙහි ගෙඩි කීපයක්‌ද ලැබී තිබිණි.

මේ අතර වනාන්තරය තුළ සිටින පිරිසට ජංගම දුරකථනවලින් ඇමතුම් ලබාගත් ගම්වාසීන් අංජනමෙන් ලැබුණු තොරතුරු කියන්නට වූහ.

ඔය කියන ගල් තලාව ළඟ තමයි අපි ඉන්නෙ. අපේ කණ්‌ඩායමේ කාන්තාවෝ කීප දෙනෙක්‌ ඉන්නවා. අපි ඒ අයත් එක්‌ක දරුවා ඉන්නව කියන ඉසව්වට යන්නම්.

පොලිස්‌ නිලධාරීන් පහරිය ගම්වාසීන්ට කීහ. ගල්තලාවේ සිට නැගෙනහිර දිසාවට කිලෝ මීටර් දෙක තුනක්‌ ගමන් ගත් කණ්‌ඩායම ඒ අවට ප්‍රදේශය පරීක්‍ෂා කරන්නට වූහ.

පුදුමයකි. ගන වනාන්තරය මධ්‍යයේ වූ කටු පඳුරක්‌ යට නිසොල්මන්ව සිටගෙන සිටින දැරියගේ ඡායාව විදුලි පහන් එළියෙන් පිරිස දුටුවෝය.

“අනේ දෙවියනේ දෙවියන්ට ස්‌තුති වන්ත වෙන්න ඕනෙ. කෙල්ල නිරුපද්‍රිතව ඉන්නවා.

ගම්වාසීන් දෙවියන්ට පිං දෙන්නට වූහ. පැය දොළහකට ආසන්න කාලයක්‌ තිස්‌සේ තමන් ගෙවා දැමූ අති දුෂ්කර ගමනේ වෙහෙස මොහොතකින් දුරුව ගොස්‌ තිබිණි.

කණ්‌ඩායමේ සිටි එක්‌ කාන්තාවක්‌ ඉදිරියට ගොස්‌ සුදු බබා සුදු බබා යනුවෙන් ආමන්ත්‍රණය කළාය.

ඒ සැණින් දැරිය “ඕහ්” යනුවෙන් ඊට පිළිතුරු දුන්නාය.

සුදු බබා අපි ආව ඔයාව හොයාගෙන. මෙහාට එන්න.”

දිනිති දැරියට කතා කළ කාන්තාව ඇය අසලට ගියාය. ඒ සැණින් දැරිය ඇය වෙත පැමිණ ඇයට තුරුළු වූවාය. දැරිය සෙවීමේ භාරධුර කාර්යයට සම්බන්ධ වී සිටි කොයි කාගේත් දැස්‌ කඳුළින් තෙත්ව ගොසින්ය. ඒ සතුටු කඳුළුය. කාගේත් හදවත් තුළ සිරවී තිබූ මහා බරක්‌ සැහැල්ලුවක්‌ මෙන් දැනෙන්නට විය. කවුරුත් සුසුම් හෙළා හද සැහැල්ලු කර ගත්හ.

ඒ වන විට කරුවලගස්‌වැව පොලිස්‌ ස්‌ථානාධිපති නුවන් පෙරේරා ඇතුළු කණ්‌ඩායමද එම ස්‌ථානයට පැමිණ සිටියහ. පොලිස්‌ ස්‌ථානාධිපතිවරයා පුංචි දැරිය තුරුළු කරගත්තේ මහා ජයග්‍රහණයක්‌ ලැබූවකු ලෙසය.

පුතේ ඔයා කොහෙද මේ ආවේ.

නුවන් පෙරේරා පුංචි දිනිතිගේ හිස අතගාමින් විමසුවාය.

“තාත්තව සොයාගෙන ආවා. ඇය උත්තර දුන්නාය. “ඔයාව කවුද එක්‌කගෙන ආවෙ. ඔයා කොහොමද මේ කැලෑව ඇතුළෙ තනියම සිටියේ”

පොලිස්‌ ස්‌ථානාධිපතිවරයා දැරියගෙන් තවත් ප්‍රශ්න කීපයක්‌ විමසුවද ඒවාට කිසිදු පිළිතුරක්‌ නැත. දැරිය තුෂ්නිම්භූතව සිටින ආකාරයක්‌ පෙනෙන්නට විය.

පොලිස්‌ නිලධාරීන් සහ ගම්වාසීන් ආපසු පහරිය ගමට එන්නට පිටත් වුණේ පුංචි දිනිතිගේ ජීවිතය බේරා ගැනීමට ලැබීමේ මහා ප්‍රීතිය බුක්‌ති විඳිමින්ය.

“අනේ මගේ රත්තරන් දුවේ උඹ කොහෙද අපිව දාලා ගියේ. මගේ සුදු දුවේ උඹ නැතිව කොහොමද මම එක මොහොතක්‌ ජීවත් වෙන්නෙ”

දිනිතිගේ පියා ඇය තුරුළු කරගෙන හඬන්නට වූවේය. ඒ වන විට 30 වැනිදා අලුයම 4.00 පසුවී තිබිණි. දිනිති දැරිය නිවසේ සිට කිලෝ මීටර් 15 කට වැඩි දුරක්‌ රක්‍ෂිත වනාන්තරය තුළ ගමන් කර තිබිණි.

නුවන් පෙරේරා මහතා දැරියගේ පාද පරීක්‍ෂා කළේය. පුදුමයකි. එහි කිසිදු තුවාලයක්‌ හෝ සීරිමක්‌ නැත. දැරිය මේ තරම් දුර පාවහන් යුවළක්‌ නොමැතිව ගමන් කළද කිසිදු සීරීමක්‌ හෝ නැත.

ඒ මොහොතේම දිනිති කරුවලගස්‌වැව රෝහලට ඇතුළත් කරන්නට පොලිසිය කටයුතු කළේය. පසුව ඇය වැඩිදුර ප්‍රතිකාර සඳහා පුත්තලම රෝහලට මාරු කළාය.

දැරිය සොයා මහ වනාන්තරයට ගිය පොලිස්‌ නිලධාරීන් සහ ගම්වාසීන් කැලෑව තුළ අන්දමන්දව සිටියදී ඇය සිටින ස්‌ථානය පිළිබඳව නිවැරැදි තොරතුරු ලබා දුන්නේ පහරිය දේවාලයෙන්. මේක අපට හිතා ගන්නටවත් බැහැ. ඒත් ඇත්ත ඒකයි.

කරුවලගස්‌වැව පොලිස්‌ ස්‌ථානාධිපති නුවන් පෙරේරා කීවාය. සැබැවින්ම පොලිස්‌ ස්‌ථානාධිපතිවරයා ඇතුළු නිලධාරීන් මෙන්ම පහරිය ගම්වාසීන් මහා අභියෝග භාරගෙන කළ ක්‍රියාවට පිංසිදු වන්නට දිනිති දැරිය අද ජීවතුන් අතරය.

එහෙත් තුන් හැවිරිදි දැරිය තබ්බෝව රක්‍ෂිතය තුළ රාත්‍රි කාලයේ මේ තරම් දුරක්‌ ගමන් කළේ කෙසේද යන්න වූ ගැටලුවට තවමත් පිළිතුරක්‌ නැත.

ළමයා කැලෑවට ගියේ බූතාවේෂයකින්. ඔය ළමයාගේ ආච්චිත් මීට අවුරුදු 35 කට 40 කට උඩදී ඔය කැලෑවට ගිහින් අතුරුදන් වුණා. අද වෙනකල් ඒ මනුස්‌සයා ගැන තොරතුරක්‌ නැහැ.

ගම්වාසීන් පැරණි මතකයන් නැවත මෙනෙහි කරන්නට වූහ. දිනිති දැරිය වැඩිදුර ප්‍රතිකාර සඳහා කොළඹ රිඡ්වේ ආර්යා රෝහලට ඇතුළු කළාය.

නවීන ලෝකය අංජනම් විශ්වාස කරන්නේ නැත. එහෙත් පොලිසිය සහ ගම්වාසීන් පවසන්නේ පහරිය දේවාලයේ මෑණියන් යෑවූ අංජනම නිසා දැරිය බේරා ගැනීමට හැකිවූ බවයි.

දරුවා කිසියම් අද්භූත බලවේගයක්‌ ඔස්‌සේ වනාන්තරයට රැගෙන යන්නට ඇති බවද ගම්වාසීහු පවසති. එයද තහවුරු කිරීමට සාක්‍ෂියක්‌ නැත.

එහෙත් ගන වනාන්තරය තුළ රාත්‍රි කාලයේ තුන් හැවිරිදි දැරියකට නිරුපද්‍රිතව මේ තරම් දුරක්‌ ගමන් කිරීම කෙසේවත් විශ්වාස කළ නොහැක. ඇය එසේ ගමන් කළේ කෙසේද යන්න සොයා ගන්නා තුරු අද්භූත බලවේගයක්‌ දැරිය රැගෙන ගිය බවට පවතින මතය බැහැර කළ හැකිද?

දැරිය අතුරුදන් වීම පිළිබඳව පැමිණිල්ල ලද සැණින් ක්‍රියාත්මක වූ ජ්‍යෙෂ්ඨ පොලිස්‌ අධිකාරි නීතිඥ සෙනරත් සඳුන්ගහවත්ත, සහකාර පොලිස්‌ අධිකාරි ජයන්ත නානායක්‌කාර, කරුවලගස්‌වැව පොලිස්‌ ස්‌ථානාධිපති නුවන් පෙරේරා ඇතුළු නිලධාරීන්ගේ කැපවීම නොවන්නට දිනිති දැරිය ජීවතුන් අතර නොසිටින්නට ඉඩ තිබිණි.

ජයසූරිය උඩුකුඹුර  Courtesy Divaina
(තව කොටසක්‌ හෙට)

දිනපතාම වාගේ අලුත් ප්‍රවෘත්ති සොයමින් සිටින අපිට නොයෙක්‌ ප්‍රවෘත්ති ගැන ලියන්නට ලැබෙන්aනේය. ත්‍රාසය භීතිය මුසුවූ පුවත් එදා බොහෝ විට අපට ලියන්නට ලැබෙන්නේ නගරයේ සිටය. නමුත් අද ඈත පිටිසර ගම්මානවලින් අසන්නට ලැබෙන ඇතැම් පුවත් ලොවම මවිත කරවන තරම්ය.

වයස අවුරුදු තුනක දැරියක්‌ හුදකලාවේ අලි, කොටි, වළසුන්ගෙන් ගහණ වනයක්‌ මැද කිලෝ මීටර් 15 ක්‌ ඇවිද ගොස්‌ අතරමංව පසුව මධ්‍යම රාත්‍රිය ද පසුව තිබියදී සොයාගත් පුවතින් ත්‍රාසය, භීතිය මෙන්ම විමතිය ද එක්‌කොට ඔබට කියන්නට අපට අවස්‌ථාව ලැබුණේය. මේ සිදුවීම පුවතට එහා ගිය යම් සිදුවීමක්‌ ඇති බව අප තේරුම් ගත්තේ එම පුවත පුරාවට මතුව පෙණුන අද්භූත සිදුවීම් පෙළක්‌ නිසාය. ලොව වෙනත් රටවලට වඩා අපේ රටේ පාඨකයන් පුවතක්‌ පසුපස හඹා යමින් එහි “අලගිය මුලගිය” තැන් කියවන්නට දක්‌වන රුචිය නිසාම අපි මේ පුවතට පසුබිම් වූ කරුවලගස්‌වැව ප්‍රදේශයට පෙරේදා (07 දා) ගියේ ඒ යටගියාව මතු කර ඔබට කියන්නටය.

පාන්දර 4.20 ට හලාවත, පුත්තලම හරහා අනුරාධපුරයට යන බසයකට මම පිටකොටුවෙන් ගොඩ වීමි. කරුවලගස්‌වැවට ගියෙමි.

අපේ සහෝදර මාධ්‍යවේදී හේමන්ත රන්දුණු පෙරදා රාත්‍රියේම පුත්තලම සහකාර පොලිස්‌ අධිකාරි ජයන්ත නානායක්‌කාර මහතාට කතා කොට මගේ පැමිණීම ගැන දන්වා තිබූ නිසා පොලිසිය මගේ පැමිණීම ගැන දැන ගෙන සිටියේය.

නගරයේ පොලිසියට වඩා ගමේ පොලිසිය කොතරම් වෙනස්‌ද? කතා බහ, පිළිගැනීම, ආගන්තුක සත්කාර මට මහත් සැනසීමක්‌ විය. පොලිස්‌ ස්‌ථානාධිපති නුවන් පෙරේරා මහතාගේ ආගන්තුක සත්කාරවලින් උදේ ආහාර වේල පිරිමසා ගත් මම ඔහුගේ සහයද ඇතිව දිනිති දැරිය කැලයේදී සොයා ගැනීමට කැප වූ පොලිස්‌ නිලධාරීන් සමඟ ද කතා බස්‌ කළෙමු.

“අපි එදා රාත්‍රී රාජකාරි සඳහා සූදානම්ව ඉන්නවිට 6.30 විතර කෙනෙක්‌ ඇවිල්ලා ළමයෙක්‌ අතුරුදන්වෙලා කියල කීවා. අතුරුදන්වෙලා තිබුණේ ගෑනු දරුවෙක්‌. මම ඒ වේලාවේ අනෙක්‌ රාජකාරි පසෙක තියලා නිලධාරීන්ට තුවක්‌කු සමග සූදානම් වෙන්න උපදෙස්‌ දුන්නා. අපි මේ දැරියගේ නිවසට යන කොටත් රාත්‍රි 7.00 පමණ උනා. මුළු ගමම එකතුවෙලා දරුවා හොයනවා. දැරිය කැලේට රිංගල කියලා අපිට දැනුණා. ගම්මු කැලේ ඇතුළේ රෑට ඇවිදින්න බයයි. දහවලටත් අලි මෙන්ම වෙනත් වන සතුන් ගැවසෙන කැලයක්‌ මේක. නමුත් මම ගම්මු උනන්දු කළා. පොලිසිය ඉන්න නිසා බය වෙන්න එපා. අපිත් එක්‌ක යමු කියලා. කැලේ ඇතුළේ අඩි පාරවල් කීපයක්‌ තිබුණා. ඒ නිසා පොලිසියත් ගම්මුත් කණ්‌ඩායම් තුනකට බෙදලා තුන් පැත්තකට කැලේ ඇතුළේ ගමන් කළා.

මේ අතරේ තමයි ගම්මුන් ගමේ තියෙන දේවාලයකට ගිහිල්ල ශාස්‌ත්‍ර අහලා තිබ්බේ. ශාස්‌ත්‍ර අහපු අයට දේවාලයෙන් කියල තිබුණා කැලේ නැගෙනහිර පැත්තට තමයි දරුවා ගමන් කරන්නෙ කියලා. ඒ පැත්තට පොලිසියේ අමිල ඇතුළු පිරිසක්‌ පිටත් කළා. එදින ප්‍රදේශයේ පින්න වැටුණු දිනයක්‌ නිසා පොළොව තෙත් වෙලා තිබුණේ. ඒ නිසා දැරිය කැලේ ඇතුළේ ගියත් අඩි සලකුණු තියෙන්න ඕනේ. දේවාලයෙන් කියපු විදිහට ගම්මු කැලේ ඇතුළට යනකොට අඩි සලකුණු දකින්න ලැබිලා. ඒ අඩි සලකුණු ඔස්‌සේ අපේ කණ්‌ඩායම් ඉදිරියට ගියා. එක තැනක දිය කඩිත්තක්‌ තිබුණා. අපේ අය ඒකට බැස්‌සාම අපේ දණහිසටත් උඩින් වෙන්න දිය කඩිත්ත ගැඹුරුයි. එතැනින් ගොඩවෙලා බැලුවාම ආයෙත් දැරියගේ පා සලකුණු තිබුණා. අඩි 3 ක්‌ පමණ උස වයස අවුරුදු 3 ක දැරියක්‌ මේ ගැඹුරු දිය කඩිත්තෙන් එගොඩ උනේ කොහොමද? අපිට කැලේ ඇතුළේදී හැඟුණේ පොලිසිය නොමග යවලා අපිත් අමාරුවේ දාන්න කවුරු හරි කටයුතු කරලාද කියලයි. අපි ඒ ගැන ගම්මුන්ට නොකියා ඕනෑම දේකට සූදානමින් දැරියගේ අඩිපාර දිගේ ගියා. නමුත් කැලේ ඇතුළේ තණබිස්‌සක්‌ හම්බ වෙනවා. මිසක්‌ එතැන අඩි පාර නෑ. දැන් ආයෙත් අපි අසරණ වුණා.

මේ අතර ආයෙත් ගම්මු දේවාලයේ ශාස්‌ත්‍ර අහන්න ගිහින්. ඔන්න දැන් කියනවා ශාස්‌ත්‍රයට කෙලින්ම තණබිස්‌සේ ඉදිරියට යන්න කියලා. දැන් ශාස්‌ත්‍රකාරියත් අපත් අතර සංවාදය ජංගම දුරකථන හරහා තමයි සිද්ධ වෙන්නෙ. ඒ අනුව අපි ඉදිරියට ගියා. දේවාලයේ ඉන්න අය කීවා ගම්මුන්ට දැරිය ගල්තලාවක්‌ ළඟ කටු පඳුරක්‌ අස්‌සේ ඉන්නෙ කියල. අපි ඉදිරියට ගියාම ගල්තලාව හමු වුණා. මේ වෙන කොටත් අපි කිලෝ මීටර් 12 කට වැඩිය ඇතුළට ඇවිල්ලා හිටියේ. වේලාව රාත්‍රි 2.00 ට පමණ. දේවාලයෙන් කියල තිබුණේ දැරිය පිපාසාවෙන් ඉන්න නිසා වතුර බොන්න වැවට යන්න පුළුවන්. එහෙම උනොත් දැරිය හොයා ගන්න බැරි වෙයි කියලයි. අපි ගල්තලාව ළඟ පුංචි වනරොද සම්පූර්ණයෙන් වට කළා. ඒ තුළ හිටපු දැරිය අපිට බේරාගන්න පුළුවන් උනා.

කවුරු මොනවා කීවත් මේ පොලිසියට මග පෙන්වීම ලැබුණේ දේවාලයෙන්. මේක අද්භූත සිද්ධියක්‌ කියලයි අපි හිතන්නේ. ඒ මොකො වුණත් විවිධ පැති ඔස්‌සේ අපි පරීක්‍ෂණ කර ගෙන යනවා. කොහොම නමුත් දැරිය බේරා ගන්න ලැබුණේ එයාගේ පිනක්‌ තිබුණු නිසාත් අපේ නිලධාරීන් ගම්මුන්ද ධෛර්මත් කර රාත්‍රි පුරාවට කැලයේ සෝදිසි කළ නිසාත් කියලයි මම හිතන්නේ. තව රසවත් අද්භූත කතා ගමේ අය දන්නවා. ගමට ගිහිල්ලම දැන ගන්නකෝ. මේ විස්‌තරය කළ පොලිස්‌ ස්‌ථානාධිපති නුවන් පෙරේරා මහතා අවසානයේදී කීවේය.

“මම ඔහුගෙන් සමු ගත්තේ ඔහු මට හඳුන්වා දුන් මග පෙන්වන්නා සමග පහරිය ගම ඇතුළට යන්නටය. පොලිසීයේ සිට කිලෝ මීටර් 15 කට වැඩිදුරක්‌ ගමට යා යුතුයි. අපි මෝටර් බයිසිකලයකින් ගමන ඇරඹුවෙමු. බසයක්‌ ධාවනය නොකරන මේ මාර්ගයේ ගම්මුන් නගරයට එන්නේ ත්‍රිරෝද රථ හෝ බයිසිකල් වලිනි. සැබැවින්ම මෙය හුදෙකලා ගමක්‌ බඳුය. අප යන අතරේ අතර මග හමුවූ ගම්මුන්ට මගේ මිත්‍රයා මාව හඳුන්වා දුන්නේ “මේ මහත්තයා පත්තරෙන්. අර ළමයා කැලේ අතරමං වෙච්ච කතාව ගැන ලියන්න ඇවිල්ලා. අපි දැන් ගමේ දේවාලයට යන්නෙ”යනුවෙනි. අපි දේවාලයට යන විටත් එහි බොහෝ පිරිසක්‌ ඇති බව තේරුම් ගියේ දේවාලයට ඇතුල් වන අඩි පාර ආරම්භයේ වාහන, බයිසිකල් කීපයක්‌ම නතර කර තිබූ බැවිණි. අප අපේ මෝටර් බයිසිකලය එහි නතර කර පා ගමනින් දේවාල භූමියට පියමැන්නෙමු. කැලෑ බදව පිහිටි මේ දේවාලය කුඩා කාමරයක පවත්වා ගෙන යන්නෙකි. දේවාලය ඉදිරිපස කැලේ රූස්‌ස ගසකි. නමුත් එහි අතු කපා දැන් කුඩා අතු ඉති විහිදී ඇත. ගස පුරාම ලෙලි පොල් එල්ලා ඇත. ගසේ එක්‌ පසෙක පහනක්‌ තැබීමට රතු තිර යොදා සකස්‌ කළ කුඩා කුටියකි. ඈත දුර ප්‍රදේශවලින් මෙන්ම ගම්මුද අප එහි යනවිටත් තම දුක්‌ ගැනවිලි දෙවියන්ට කියා පිහිට ලබා ගැනීමට පැමිණ සිටියහ. මට දේව ගැති මෑණියන් සමග කතා කරන්නට ඕනෑ විය. නමුත් ඇය දේවාලයේ රාජකාරි නිම කරන්නට තවත් හෝරා කීපයක්‌ ගත වන බව එහි ආවතේව කරන තරමක තරුණ කාන්තාව කීවාය. මේ නිසා මම එහි සිටි ගැමියන් සමග දැරියගේ කැලය මැද අද්භූත ගමන ගැන කතා කළෙමි.

මැය එහිම පදිංචිකාරියකි. දැරිය නැතිවූ දින ඇය සොයා ගන්නට දේවාලයේ සහය ලබා ගැනීමට රාත්‍රි 12.00 ට දේවාලයට පැමිණ ඇති ඇය නමින් ඩී. එම්. ඉනෝකා ය. වයස අවුරුදු 24 කි. මේ ඇය අපට කියූ කතාවය.

“සිද්ධිය වූ දිනයේ හවස 4.00 ට විතර අපිට ආරංචි උනා. සුද්දී (දිනිති දැරියට කියන සුරතල් නම) ගෙදර නෑ කියලා. අපිත් ගියා. ගෙදර වටේ කැලෑව හැමතැනම බැලුවා. හිටියේ නෑ. ඒ අතර අපි ළමයි දෙන්නෙක්‌ ගමේ දේවාලයට යවලා බලන්න කීවා. තවත් කෙනෙක්‌ පොලිසියට පැමිණිලි කරන්න ගියා. පොලිසියෙන් එන කොටත් ගම්මු කැලේට ගිහිල්ලා දරුවා සොයා ගන්න බැලුවා. රාත්‍රි නිසා සත්තු ඉන්න කැලේක ගම්මු ඇතුළට යන්න බය උනා. නමුත් පොලිසියේ මහත්වරු ඇවිත් ගම්මු උනන්දු කරවා ගෙන කැලේට ගියා. ඔය අතර දේවාලයට ගිය අයට කියලා තිබුණා දරුවා කැලේ ඇතුළේ නැගෙහිර දෙසට ගමන් කරනවා කියලා. පිරිමි අයට කතා නොකර ගෑනු කෙනෙක්‌ කතා කරන්න කියලා. දේවාලයෙන් පොල් ගෙඩියක්‌ පහනක්‌ දීලා තිබුණා. පොල් ගෙඩිය ළමයා මුණගැහුණාම ආපසු දේවාලයට අරන් එන්න කියලත් තිබුණා. නමුත් ගිය ළමයි අතින් පොල් ගෙඩිය බිඳිලා. දැන් වේලාව රාත්‍රී 12.00 ට විතර ඇති. මුළු ගමම පොලිසිය එක්‌ක කැලේ ඇතුළේ.

මම ආයෙත් දේවාලයට ආවා. ඒ මෑණියෝ වයසයි. එයා ගෙදර නිදාගෙන හිටියේ. බයිසිකලේකින් ඒ මෑණියෝa දේවාලයට එක්‌කර ගෙන ඇවිල්ලා තමයි රුපියල් 5/- ක්‌ බුලත් කොලේක තියල දීලා ශාස්‌ත්‍ර ඇහුවේ. ඒ එන කොට ළමයා කැලේ නැගෙනහිරින් උතුරු පැත්තට ගිහිල්ල කීවා. අඩි සලකුණු තියෙනවා. කීවා. අපි ඒ තොරතුරු කැලේ ඉන්න අයට දුරකථනයෙන් කීවා. නමුත් අඩිපාර තණ පිට්‌ටනියකදී නැතිsවෙලා කියල කැලේ ඉන්නඇයට කීවාම ආයේත් අපි දෙවියන්ගෙන් ඇහුවා. ඒ පාර තමයි ඒ තණපිටිය මැදින් කෙළින්aම ගමන් කරන්න කීවේ. දැරිය තණ බිමේ තුන්පොළක සෙම දාලා කියලත් කීවා. තණ බිම කෙළවරේ කැලය ඇතුළේ ගල් තලාවක්‌ පාමුල කටුපඳුරු අස්‌සේ දැරිය ඉන්නවා කීවා. අපි ඒ තොරතුරු කැලේ ඉන්න අයට කියන ගමන් දේවාලයෙන් දුන්නු පහනක්‌, පොල්ගෙඩියක්‌ සහ දෙහි ගෙඩියත් අරගෙන දැරියගේ ගෙදරට ගියා. පහන නිවෙන්නෙ නැතුව ආරක්‍ෂා කළා. ඒ වගේම දේවාලයෙන් කීවා දැරියට ගෑනු කෙනෙක්‌ කතා කරන්න කියලා. එවිට දැරිය කතා කරයි කියලා. අපි කැලේ හිටිය අයට ඒ සියල්ල තේරුම් කරලා දුන්නා. දේව හාස්‌කමට තමයි දරුවා හම්බ උනේ. දේවාලයෙන් කීවා හරි. දරුවා ඉඳලා තියෙන්නේ අංජනමෙන් කී විදියටම කටු ගොන්නක්‌ අස්‌සේ.

මේ දරුවාට කැලේදී කතා කළේ මනෝරි සේනාරත්න මහත්මියයි. ඇය හිටපු ප්‍රාදේශීය සභා මන්ත්‍රී ඉන්දික කුමාර ජයලත් මහතාගේ බිරිඳයි. ඇය සමග අපි ඇගේ අත්දැකීම බෙදාගත්තෙමු. දරුවා නෑ කීවාම අපිත් ගියා. ඒ වෙලාවේ අපි දෙන්නා නාන්න වැවට ගිහිල්ල හිsටියේ. දරුවා අතුරුදන් කීවාම අපි දෙන්නා ඒ පැත්තට යන කොටත් ගමේ අය පිරිලා. පොලිසියත් ආවා. අපි දෙන්නත් පොලිසියත් ගමේ අය එක්‌ක කැලේට ගියා. මමත් මගේ මහත්තයත් වාසනාවකට වගේ දැරිය ගිය පැත්තට යන කණ්‌ඩායමට තමයි එකතු වුණේ. මුලදී කණ්‌ඩායම් තුනකට බෙදිලා තමයි කැලේට ගියේ. දේවාලේ තොරතුරුවලට අනුව දැරියගේ පා සටහන් තිබුණේ අපේ කණ්‌ඩායම ගිය පාරේ.

දේවාලයේ ඉන්න අය අපිට දුරකථනයෙන් දුන් උපදෙස්‌ අනුව ගල්තලාව ළඟට ගිහිල්ලා මම “සුද්දී මගේ පුතේ ඔයා කොහේද?” කියල ඇහුවා. එතකොට වනයම දෙදරුම් කන තරමේ දොaංකාරයක්‌ එක්‌ක “එන්නකෝ” කියල කීවා. ඒ ශබ්දයට අපි හැමෝම බය වුණා. ඇඟේ හිරිගඩු පිපුණා. පොලිසිය අවි අමෝරා ගෙන අපේ බය නැති කළා. ඔවුන් ඒ ශබ්දය ආව ප්‍රදේශය ගම්මු එක්‌ක වට කළා. මම ආයෙත් “සුද්දී, පුතා ඔයා කොහේද?” කියල ඇහුවා. ඒකට හඬක්‌ ආවෙ නෑ. මම නැවතත් කතා කළා. ඒ පාර “ඕ” කියල අපි හිටිය ළඟම කටු කැලේ අස්‌සෙන් ශබ්දයක්‌ ආවා. පොලිසියත් අපේ කට්‌ටියත් එක්‌ක ඒ තැන වට කරලා බලන කොට කටු කැලේ අස්‌සෙ හුඹසක්‌ වගේ තැනක දරුවා හිටියා. මගේ මහත්තයා එක පාරට පැනල කටු කැලේ අස්‌සෙන් ළමයා එළියට ගන්නකොට ළමයා ගැහෙන්න ගත්තා. ඒ වේලේ ළමයා මගේ අතට ගත්තාම ගැහිල්ල නතර උණා. ළමයාගේ ඇඟේ මඩවත්, තෙතමනයවත්, තුවාලවත් තිබුණේ නෑ. අපි ළමයත් අරගෙන කැලෙන් එළියට එනකොටත් වේලාව පාන්දර 3.00 ට විතර ඇති. එදා දවසේ කෑමක්‌වත් වතුර ටිකක්‌වත් නැතිව ගමේ අයයි පොලිසියේ අයයි මහන්සි වෙලා දරුවා හොයා ගත්තෙ දේවාලයේ මෑණියන්ගෙන් හරියට තොරතුරු කිය වුණ නිසා යෑයි මනෝරි කීවාය.

දේවාල භූමියේ තවමත් අපි රැඳී සිටියෙමු. තවමත් දේවගැති මෑණියන්ගේ දේව රාජකාරිය ඉවර නැත. නමුත් ඇගේ කටයුතු නිම වනතුරු සිටිය නොහැකි නිසා ඒ වනවිටත් පෝලිමේ සිටි අයගෙන් අවසර ගෙන මම ද බුලත් අතක රුපියල් 100 ක්‌ තබා දේව මැණියන්ගෙන් තොරතුරු විමසන්නට අවස්‌ථාව ලබා ගත්තෙමි. (මා බුලත් අත ඉල්ලා ගත්තේද එහි පැමිණ සිටි අයකුගෙන්ය.)

ජයසූරිය උඩුකුඹුර Courtesy Island
මෙහි මුල් කොටස ඊයේ පළවිය
දේවගැති මෑණියන් දේවාරූඪයෙන් මට කී කාරණා පටිගත කර ගැනීමටද මම වග බලා ගත්තෙමි. ඇය මා හට සඳහන් කළ තොරතුරු අනුව දරුවා කැලේට ගොස්‌ ඇත්තේ කම්පනයකින් සිත තුළ ඇති වූ බියකින්ය. නමුත් අසිහියෙන් නොවේ. කැලේදී ඇය අසනීපව ඇති බවද පාන්දර 3.00 ට පෙර දරුවා සොයා ගැනීමට අපහසු වූයේ නම් දරුවා ජලය ලබා ගන්නට වැවට ගොස්‌ සතුන්ට බිලි වී විනාශ වන බව මෑණියෝ කියූහ.

මේ දේවාරූඪයෙන් කී ඇතැම් කරුණු පොලිස්‌ පරීක්‍ෂණවලට බාධාවක්‌ විය හැකි බැවින් මෙහි සඳහන් නොකිරීමට වග බලා ගත් නමුත් ඒ තොරතුරු මා පොලිසියේ බුද්ධි අංශය සමඟ කතාබහ කිරීමේදී ඔවුන් ද තහවුරු කිරීම පුදුම සහගතය.

අප දේවාලයේ ශාස්‌ත්‍ර කීම අසා යළිත් වනයේ අද්භූත සිදුවීම් ගැන කතා කළෙමු. මේ ඉන්දික කුමාර ජයලත් මහතා අපට කී කතාවය.

“ඔය සිද්ධියට මුහුණ දුන් දරුවා මගේ ඥති දියණියක්‌. මීට වසර 30 කට පමණ කලින් අපේ අම්මාගේ අම්මා කෙනෙක්‌ ද ඔය කැලේ අතරමං වෙලා තියෙනවා. අදටත් ඇය ගැන තොරතුරක්‌ නෑ. ඇය එදා වැවට නාන්න ගිහිsල්ල බඩේ අමාරුවකට ළඟ ගෙදරකට ඇවිල්ල වැසිකිළි යන්න වතුර ටිකක්‌ ඉල්ලලා. එදා ඒa ගෙදර අය ලොකු පොල්කට්‌ටකට වතුර ටිකක්‌ දීලා. ඒ පොල්කට්‌ට කහ දියර සකස්‌ කළ එකක්‌ලු. ඒ පොල් කට්‌ටට වතුරත් අරගෙන ගිය උන්දෑ අදටත් ආපසු ආවේ නෑ. කැලේ හොයල බලන කොට ඔය දියණිය හමු වූ තැනට එහායින් ඇති ගල්තලාව ළඟ තිබී පොල්කට්‌ට හම්බ වුණා කියලයි කියන්නේ.

තවත් රසවත් කතා කැලේ ගැන අතීතයේදී අහන්න ලැබුණාලු. ඔය කැලේ අතරමං වෙලා බඩගිනි උනාම පලතුරු ගස්‌ මැවිලා ඒ අයට පලතුරු කන්න ලැබෙනවාලු. පලතුරු කාලා බඩ පුරවා ගෙන ආපසු එන්න සුදු ඇඳගත්තු “ශාන්ත” සීයා කෙනෙක්‌ පාර පෙන්වනවාලු. මේ කතා දැන් අය දන්නෙ නෑ. මමත් අපේ සීයල කියල තියෙනවා අහලයි දන්නෙ.

ඒ අබිරහස්‌ කැලේ අතරමං වූ දරුවා දිනිති (සුද්දී) ගැන ද ඇතැම් කරුණු අබිරහස්‌ ය. ඇය ගමන් කර ඇති මාර්ගයේ හමුවන දිය කඩිත්තෙන් ඇය එගොඩ වූයේ කෙසේද? ඒ දිය කඩිත්ත සාමාන්‍ය වැඩුණු තරුණයකුගේ දණහිසට ඉහළින් ගැඹුරුය. එමෙන්ම ඇය ගිය මාර්ගයේ බැඳි තුවක්‌කු දෙකක්‌ එකට එකක්‌ ළඟින් තිබී ඇත. ඒවායින්ද බේරී ඇය ගියේ කෙසේද?

මළපොතේ අකුරක්‌ නොදන්නා දේවාලයේ දේව ගැති මෑණියන් හරියටම දියණියගේ ගමන්මඟ පවසා ඇය බේරා ගැනීමට පොලිසියටත් ගම්මුන්ටත් දුන් සහාය අවතක්‌සේරු කොට බැහැර කළ හැකිද?

මේ සියලු කාරණා සමඟ මෙවැනි සිද්ධියකින් පසුව ඇතිවන අතුරු කතාබහක්‌ ද පහරිය ගමේ දැන් අසන්නට ඇත. ඒ දේවාලයේ ද සහාය ඇතිව දියණිය අසිහියෙන් කැලයට රැගෙන ගොස්‌ නිධන් ගන්න උත්සාහයක්‌ ගෙන ඇති බවට පැතිර යන කතාවය. මේ කතාවට ගම්මු කෝප වී ඇති අතරම ඇතැම් මාධ්‍යයන් දිනිති දියණිය ගල් ගුහාවක සිට හමුව ඇති බවට වාර්තා කර තිබීම ගැන ද අප සමඟ දොස්‌ නැඟීය. ගම්මුනට දේවාලය ගැන ඇත්තේ විශාල විශ්වාසයකි. ඒ නිසා ඔවුන් දේවාලය ඉදිකර දෙන්නට සූදානම් වන බවද අප සමග කීවේය. එමෙන්ම මෙම සිද්ධියෙන් පසු දේවාලයේ දේව ගැති මෑණියන්ට අසභ්‍ය වචනයෙන් බැන වදින සමච්චල් කරන දුරකථන ඇමතුම් ලැබී ඇති බවද ඒවා පොලිසියට බාර දී පරීක්‍ෂණයක්‌ ඉල්ලා සිටින බවද ඔවුහු කීහ.

කෙසේ වුවද මෙම දියණියගේ කැලෑ ගමනට හේතුව පවුලෙන් පිට ඥතීන්ගේ ආරවුලක්‌ නිසා බහින් බස්‌වීමක්‌ හා බැඳුණු සිදුවීමක්‌ බවට පොලිසියේ බුද්ධි අංශ දැනටමත් තොරතුරු අනාවරණය කර ගෙන ඇත.

ඉතා අසරණ එක කාමරයක්‌ සහිත දොරගුළු නැති ගෙදරක ජීවත් වී ඇති දිනිති හා ඇගේ දෙමාපියන් ගමේ කිසිවකුටවත් කරදරයක්‌ නැති අහිංසක පිරිසක්‌ බව ගම්මු අපට කීවේ ඔවුන්ගේ දරුවා පැහැර ගැනීමට කිසිවකු ඉදිරිපත් නොවන බව පවසමිනි.

කෙසේ වුවද භෞතික අඩු පහසුකම් සහිත නමුත් එඩිතර පොලිසියේ ගෞරවය හා වගකීම මැනවින් ඉටු කරමින් දිනිති දැරිය බේරා ගැනීමට ගම්මුන් ද උනන්දු කරවමින් මහ රෑ වන සතුන් බහුල වනාන්තරයේ සැරිසැරූ කරුවලගස්‌වැව පොලිස්‌ ස්‌ථානාධිපති ඇතුළු නිලධාරීන් ඇගයීම පොලිස්‌පතිතුමා ඇතුළු එම දෙපාර්තමේන්තුවේ වගකීම යෑයි අපි අවධාරණය කරන්නේ සේයා දැරියගේ පරීක්‍ෂණවලදී පොලිසියට එකතු වී ඇති කළු පැල්ලමට තවත් කළු පැල්ලම් එකතු නොකර බුද්ධිමත්ව හා ක්‍රියාශීලීව දිනිති දැරිය පණ පිටින් බේරා ගැනීමට පොලිසිය පෙරමුණ ගැනීම නිසාය.

එමෙන්ම වයස 66 ක්‌ වයසැති වැන්දඹු කාන්තාවක්‌ වූ ඩී. එම්. ඒ. රම්මැණිකා මාතාව මහ රෑ තම වයස හා වෙහෙස නොබලා දේවාලයට පැමිණ දේව කාරිය ඉටු කරමින් දියණිය බේරා ගැනීමට සහාය වීම සංස්‌කෘතික අමාත්‍යාංශයේ අවධානය යොමු විය යුතු කාර්යයක්‌ යෑයි ද අපි විශ්වාස කරමු. අතීතයේ මෙන්ම අදත් පවත්නා මේ ශාස්‌ත්‍ර කීම් විශ්වාස කිරීම හෝ නොකිරීම වෙනම කරුණකි. එහෙත් දිනිති දැරිය බේරාගැනීමට මඟ පෙන්වූ යථාර්ථය ඒ කිසිදු වාදයක්‌ නිසා අවලංගු නොවන්නකි.

මේ ගමනේදී අප දුටු තවත් ගැටලු කීපයක්‌ ද බලධාරීන්ගේ අවධානයට යොමු කරවීම ඒ ගැටලුවලට මුහුණ දී සිටින එගම්වැසියන්ට සාධාරණය ඉටු කරවා ගැනීමට මග පෙන්වීමක්‌ වනු ඇතැයි සිතමි.

පහරියගම පාරම්පරික ගම්මානයක්‌ නොව විවිධ ප්‍රදේශවලින් පැමිණි අය පදිංචි ගම්මානයකි. කරුවලගස්‌වැව සිට පහරිය හන්දිය දක්‌වා බස්‌ රථයකින් පැමිණිය හැකි නමුත් එතැන් සිට ගම තුළට කිලෝ මීටර් 16 ක්‌ පමණ පෞද්ගලික බස්‌ රථයක්‌වත් ධාවනය නොවන මාර්ගයකි. කොන්ක්‍රීට්‌ අතුරා සකස්‌ කර ඇති මේ මාර්ගයේ බස්‌ රථයක්‌ ධාවනය කළ හැකි බව පෙනේ. එසේ කළ හැකි නම් මේ ගම්මුන්ට එය මහත් අස්‌වැසිල්ලක්‌ වනු ඇත.

එමෙන්ම අලි වැට ඉදිකර එය රැක බලා ගැනීමට සිවිල් ආරක්‍ෂක සේවාවේ නිලධාරීන් යොදවා සිටිය ද අලි කරදර අඩුවක්‌ නැති බව ගම්මු කියති. අලි වැට ඉදිකිරීමට යොදා ගෙන ඇති කණු අලින් බිම දමන්නේ ඔවුන්ගේ කකුලෙන් තල්ලු කරමින් බව ද ඔවුහු කියති.

අලිමංකඩක ඉදිකර ඇති උදාගමක්‌ මේ වනවිට අලින් විනාශ කර දමා ඇති අයුරු අපි දැක්‌කෙමු. ගෙවල් කඩා බිඳ දමා ඇති මෙම නිවෙස්‌වල පදිංචිකරුවන් එම නිවාසවලින් ඉවත්වී ගොසිනි.

කරුවලගස්‌වැව පොලිසිය ද ගමේ ප්‍රජාශාලා ගොඩනැගිල්ලක්‌ බඳුය. “ලබුගෙඩියේ කංකාරිය” සේ මේ පොලිසියේ මහත්වරුන්ට සිය රාජකාරි සඳහා ප්‍රමාණවත් ඉඩ පහසුකම් නොමැති බව එහි යනෙන අයට මැනවින් පෙනෙන දෙයකි. ජල පහසුව පවා නොමැති මෙම පොලිසියේ සේවය කරන නිලධාරීන් මුහුණ දී ඇති අපහසුතා රැසක්‌ ඇති බව අපට නිරීක්‍ෂණය වූයේ අප මෙම පොලිස්‌ ස්‌ථානයේ බොහෝවේලාවක්‌ කල් ගත කළ නිසාවෙනි.

මේ පොදු ගැටලුවලට විසඳුම් ලබා දීමට ද බලධාරීන් මැදිහත් වන්නේ නම් එය මේ ප්‍රදේශයේ ජනතාවට මහත් අස්‌වැසිල්ලක්‌ බවද සඳහන් කරනු කැමැත්තෙමි.

මේ චාරිකාවේදී සහය වූ සැමට ස්‌තුතියි.

By H. L. D. Mahindapala –

Despite all the hot air pumped to float the UNHRC Resolution A/HRC/30/L. 29 its future is not guaranteed as the stormy atmospherics which seem to be gathering over the horizon are putting a heavy strain on the stability of the Siri-Wicky regime and, more importantly, its ability to deliver the truck load of promises contained in the Resolution, mainly to win applause from abroad. Ranil Wickremesinghe, who is carrying the heavy load, seems to be driven by a self-motivated compulsion to implement the grand reformist plan in the Resolution. Right now he is engaged in some fancy footwork to market his underhand attempt to feed defenders of the nation as dinner to the foreign judicial piranhas. Though Wickremesinghe is putting on a brave front he too is not sure of the consequences of the far-reaching and complex reforms proposed in the Resolution. And among other things, he appears to be groping in the dark not knowing how to put things together, or how to hold the centre together as various component parts of the centre are finding it uneasy to cohabit even for the next two-year – the time limit he has placed on his proposed national government.”

To begin with, the political, legal and logistical mechanisms needed to kick start the implementation of the Resolution L. 29 will take a considerable time. It is going to be a costly process, financially and politically. Like the unfulfilled and unattainable transformation promised in the 100-days” there is a great deal of airy-fairy expectations waiting to come out of the paper on which they were written. Right now the Resolution L. 29 is floating like a pie in the sky for the simple reason that no one has the foggiest idea about the methodologies needed to implement the Resolution, or the extent to which the foreign judges will override the powers of local judges, or show where it is going to end once the Pandora’s Box sent from Geneva is opened. Some speculative pessimists believe that it is possible for the end to come before the beginning.

The operational aspects are so humongous that there are serious doubts about the chances of the Siri-Wicky duo implementing the Resolution L. 29 to the satisfaction of all stakeholders. If the Siri-Wicky duo can do the trick they will go down in history as the biggest reformers ever. But the Resolution itself contains all the inter-twining and intractable complexities of gigantic proportions that each one of them has the potential to be a roadblock to bring the process to a grinding halt. Questions will rise all the way. For instance, will the Siri-Wicky duo have the skill, the know-how and the political capacity to bring a closure to the international and domestic problems that they seek to resolve through the implementation of the Resolution? Is the Resolution going to be the panacea that will take the nation over the hill? Or will it create more problems than the existing ones and drag the nation into a deeper quagmire? In fact, there are those who now predict that even the fake national government, which is tasked with the mission of seeing it through, will soon cease to be national” or even a government”. If that happens Resolution L. 29 will go down with it.

That, of course, is a saga of its own which has to be dealt separately. My concern right now is different. I am concerned about the Resolution itself and some of its contents which will have serious consequences both to the UNHRC and the Sri Lanka. The ramifications of UNHRC Resolution run in several directions. However, in clause after clause, the Resolution L.29 repeats the overall objectives. It emphasises the necessity to pursue 1) truth-seeking; 2) justice; 3) reparations and (4) and non-recurrence of the violence that led to the violations of human rights. These four objectives are written into Resolution L. 29 as the main goals that should be achieved by both the national and international signatories.

The greater share of achieving these goals is put on the shoulders of Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) not only as a co-sponsor but also as the main party responsible for its implementation. In general, all other parties too are expected to act collectively to get at the truth, deliver justice and reparations and prevent the recurrence of the violence that led to the violation of human rights of all communities. One thing is certain : these four main goals can be achieved only if the full range of crimes are investigated.

Of the four goals listed in the Resolution finding the truth is the first and primary requirement for the resolution /achievement of the other three goals. But this cannot be achieved if in a 33-year-old war (from May 1976 – May 2009) investigations are confined to a selected phase, ignoring the totality of the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during full length of the longest running war in Asia.” It was a war launched by the Tamil leadership to break up the nation into two ethnic entities. The appropriate date that marks the beginning of political violence that led to the Vadukoddai War (a.k.a. Eelam War) is May 14, 1976 when the Tamil leadership passed the Vadukoddai Resolution urging the Tamil youth to take up arms until they achieve Eelam. It was, for all intents and purposes, a declaration of war in which the Tamil leadership decided to take up arms against the democratically elected state. This was also the first time that a Sri Lankan community officially declared war to dismember the nation. The escalation of violence began after the Tamil leadership endorsed and legitimized violence as a means of achieving Eelam.

So the investigation of the violence that led to the violations of human rights should begin from May 14, 1976 when the Tamil leadership legitimized an armed conflict as a means of achieving Eelam. The war declared by the Tamil leadership dragged on needlessly for 33 years, despite direct interventions by India and the international community to end it. However, the focus is confined to the last few weeks / months of the war. Selecting arbitrarily one fragment of the longest running war in Asia” cannot lead to the discovery of the full truth. Only the investigation of the full range of crimes committed during the war can yield the truth. Besides, the four objectives highlighted in the Resolution demands a comprehensive survey of the crimes committed by all the combatants in the war and this cannot be achieved by limiting the investigations to a period that would exclude one or the other combatant.

The necessity to cover the full range of the violations and abuses of human rights is recognized clearly in the Resolution. Operational clause 7 states: 7. Encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to reform its domestic law to ensure that it can implement effectively its own commitments, the recommendations made in the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, as well as the recommendations of the report of the Office of the High Commissioner, including by allowing for, in a manner consistent with its international obligations, the trial and punishment of those most responsible for the full range of crimes (emphasis mine) under the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations relevant to violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law, including during the period covered by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission;”

Clearly, no period is excluded in the Resolution. Nor has any state /combatant involved in the war in Sri Lanka been excluded, though only GOSL and the LTTE have been named. This means that the Resolution is open for the investigation of the full range of crimes committed by all combatants. The incremental escalation of violence that began with the passing of the Vadukoddai Resolution on May 14. 1976 too demands that the full range of crimes” must be included to arrive at the whole truth. Only an investigation covering the full range of crimes” committed throughout the Vadukoddai War can lead to a comprehensive understanding of the truth. Greater the comprehensiveness greater the truth / meaning.

Any attempt to limit the full range of crimes” would distort the history, pervert the meaning and take us further away from the truth. For instance, it could lead to the false conclusion that violations of human rights occurred only in the last weeks of a 33-year-old war. Besides, to confine investigations only to the last weeks would be a calculated move designed to exclude a guilty party or two who played critical roles in the 33-year-old war. A noticeable feature of the anti-Sri Lankan resolutions / commentaries / reports at the UNHRC and other fora has been to put the blame on GOSL and paint it as the guilty party with, of course, passing and partial references to the LTTE. The fundamental flaw in Resolution L. 29 is that, unlike the other previous resolutions, the GOSL too has gone out of the way to voluntarily accept guilt almost in toto. This is a bizarre situation. One has to go to the magic realism in Gabriel Garcia Marquez to find a parallel situation. In one of his masterpieces a man goes in search of his lost donkey only to find it standing patiently in a queue in front of the slaughter house, implying that the donkey has voluntarily given himself up to be slaughtered. In all respects the Siri-Wicky government has been acting as the miserable donkey standing in front of the UNHRC slaughterhouse waiting to be cut and chopped into marketable pieces.

Another factor that distorts the ground reality is that, in the remaining ruins of the post-war period, the only combatants that are left to face the charges of violations of human rights are those in the GOSL. The LTTTers mentioned are either dead or have escaped into foreign countries – countries which are accusing Sri Lanka of violating human rights. But if the full range of crimes”mentioned in Resolution L. 29 is to be investigated then a) the UNHRC, b) the proposed hybrid judicial mechanism and c) the GOSL will have to broaden the scope and bring to book all involved parties. The full range of crimes” should include all combatants in the battlefields and those who provided material assistance to the Tamil Tiger terrorists in various capacities. So the focus should fall on all three combatants in the battle fields : 1. Sri Lankan security forces, 2. LTTE and 3. the IPKF. None of these combatants can be excluded. But the Resolution which insists on investigating the full range of crimes” has left out the IPKF and focused only the GOSL and the LTTE.

If the Resolution is implemented in a partisan way to grant impunity to any single party then it loses its validity as an instrument of serving justice and fairness to all victims of the Vadukoddai War. The universal principles of human rights should be applied evenly across the board and all parties, without exception, should be investigated and held accountable. The co-sponsors of the Resolution has referred to only GOSL and the LTTE by name. But if, as stated in the Resolution, the full range of crimes under the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations relevant to violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law” are to be investigated then it is imperative that the UNHRC, judges, prosecutors and investigators must include the third party, India, which played a decisive role in initiating, promoting, harbouring, training, financing, motivating, arming and exporting Tamil terrorists to destabilize Sri Lanka. India not only gave material assistance to Tamil Tiger terrorism violating international humanitarian law and international law dealing with sovereign states but also committed gross war crimes and crimes against humanity when its forces were operating in the North and the East. The silence of the UNHRC reports and the resolutions on these grave violations of human rights questions not only the impartiality of this UN instrumentality but also the commitment to human rights of those sponsoring the UNHRC Resolution.

Investigating the full range of crimes”, as stated in the Resolution, makes it obligatory to place India on the same footing as the other two. If all three combatants are investigated for crimes against humanity and war crimes then it is possible to consider the Resolution as a viable mechanism to get at the truth, provide justice and achieve reconciliation. But when every word in the Resolution is written in to try only two parties and leave a major player like India out what are the possibilities of arriving at the truth or achieving reasonable justice? It is imperative that the investigators, prosecutor/s, and judges should investigate the role of India because, according to operative clause 4 of the Resolution, the Government of Sri Lanka, the primary implementer, is committed to undertake a comprehensive approach to dealing with the past”, which means that no single party can be excluded. India has been a key player in all phases of terrorism – past and present — in Sri Lanka. Removing India from the Sri Lankan crisis is like removing Hanuman from the Mahabaratha : the Indian destroyer that set fire to the whole of Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan crisis would not have dragged on so long, nor would there have been grave violations of human rights if India, with its high moral postures in the international stage, allowed Sri Lanka to solve its own problems. India came in the guise of a problem-solver but ended up as the destructive Hanumanic force that worsened the conditions for all Sri Lankans.

In one of the side sessions held at the UNHRC in 2012, presided by Mahinda Samarasinghe, I spoke focusing on the negative and destructive role of India. Samarasinghe cut in to say that India came in at our invitation. That is true. But we didn’t invite India to violate human rights of Sri Lankans. We invited India to eliminate the fascist terror and protect human rights. The Hanumanic role of India must be factored in at every stage by those seeking the truth and justice for the Sri Lankan victims. If UNHRC is serious about its commitment to human rights then India should not be allowed to avoid its responsibilities and obligations under international humanitarian law and international law. Those charged with implementing the UNHRC resolution cannot ignore it either, because one of the four conditions stipulated in the Resolution is to take measures for the non-recurrence” of the violations of human rights. Documented historical records prove that it is the unwarranted intervention of India in Sri Lanka’s internal affairs that led to the escalation of violence to an unprecedented scale. Besides, only India can guarantee that there will be no recurrence of the violence it exported to Sri Lanka. The failure of the UNHRC Resolution to name India as one of three parties involved in violations of human rights undermines its credibility to be an instrument committed to find the truth. Truth, justice, reparations and non-recurrence of violence highlighted in the UNHRC Resolution cannot be achieved by allowing India to get away scot free.

President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe have sold the nation down the river by admitting primary guilt and even inviting foreigners to come over and punish the Sri Lankans who defended the nation. But they have never raised the violations committed by India on Sri Lankan soil in any fora. They have been denigrating President Mahinda Rajapakse and his forces as guilty parties who should pay the price for saving the nation. But they have never raised the issue of India not only failing to save the nation from the terrorism they exported to Sri Lanka but also their war crimes and crimes against Sri Lanka victims. For instance, on one occasion the subhuman IPKF raided the Jaffna hospital and slaughtered surgeons, doctors, nurses and patients purely on suspicion of harbouring LTTE cadres. If India is excluded from investigation who is it who will be liable to pay reparations for the victims of Indian atrocities?

Looking at the Indian role from any angle it is abundantly clear that the investigators and prosecutors cannot get anywhere near the truth without investigating the role of India in the past. To proceed with the investigations without including India will be an exercise in futility and absurdity. Only the investigation of the role of India will, as stated in the same clause 4 of the Resolution, help to advance accountability for serious crimes by all sides (repeat, by all sides”) and to achieve reconciliation.” The total responsibility of implementing the provisions of the Resolution fully and credibly” falls on the broad shoulders of the UNHRC, GOSL and the investigators, prosecutors and the judges . The co-sponsors of the Resolution cannot pussy foot around with the unambiguously stated provision of the Resolution to investigate the full range of crimes”. In clause 4 this is elaborated to emphasize : if implemented fully and credibly, will help to advance accountability for serious crimes by all sides (emphasis mine) and to achieve reconciliation.”

So will the co-sponsors and UNHRC conduct a fully and credibly” valid investigation covering the full range of crimes .. by all sides”? Or will they drag only the Sri Lankan forces and others in the chain of command before the proposed hybrid court? Both America and Sri Lanka, the co-sponsors, state in the Resolution emphatically that it is the responsibility of States (plural, which include India) to comply with their relevant obligations to prosecute those responsible for gross violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law constituting crimes under international law, with a view to ending impunity.” So why was India not included in the Resolution?

It also states in the preamble: Recognizing that the investigation into alleged serious violations and abuses of human rights and related crimes in Sri Lanka requested in Human Rights Resolution 25/1 was necessitated by the absence of a credible national process of accountability.” If the UNHRC is motivated to investigate Sri Lanka by the absence of a credible national process of accountability how come it has not moved to investigate India because of its absence of a credible national process of accountability”. India should have been investigated by India not only with regard to Sri Lanka but also for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Bangladesh, Kashmir, the sacred Golden Temple of the Sikhs in Amritsar?

Morality in the international community depends of the quantum of power a nation can muster to violate human rights. America poses as the most moral nation – it even wins Nobel Peace prizes for peace — because there is no power on earth to take it to an international tribunal. And even if an international court passes judgement against it ( example: ICJ’s judgment on America’s covert war against Nicaragua ) America can kick that into the wastepaper basket without any fear of repercussions. Will Prince Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein summon a special session of UNHRC and pass a resolution against America for bombing the hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, or for supplying cluster bombs to the Saudis who use them mercilessly against the Yemeni civilians?

India too is in that privileged class. UNHRC has allowed India, which killed, raped, and abused human rights of Sri Lankans, to get away with impunity? The female suicide-bomber who killed Rajiv Gandhi is known as a rape victim of the IPKF. This reflects the intensity of anti-Indian feelings in Jaffna. The Siri-Wicky regime and TNA go on bended to India and exonerates India of all the crimes committed on Sri Lankan soil. But it vilifies Mahinda Rajapakse the leader who saved Sri Lanka from its subhuman terrorist monsters exported to Sri Lanka. What is worse, the Siri-Wicky regime, which has no substantial achievements to its name, is screaming from rooftops that their invitation to foreigners to take over the judiciary with powers to punish the Sri Lankans as their greatest victory. India, on the contrary, will not let any mother’s son to touch any of their forces who had served the nation.

The silence of the so-called human rights activists on India’s criminal conduct too speaks of their hypocrisy. Why hasn’t Paki Saravanamuttu or Jehan (Pacha) Perera invited Radhika Coomaraswamy to deliver one of her sermons on human rights? Will they eve join hands and demand that the IPKF soldiers who had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in Sri Lanka should be brought before the imported court and tried? Or will all these human rights activists go back to their high living now that they are assured that India will be exempted from any charges and ONLY the Sri Lankan defenders who fought to save the human rights of all Sri Lankan will be brought to trial?

Shenali D Waduge

In 2014 Navi Pillay appointed 3 international experts to investigate Sri Lanka. Martti Ahtisaari, former President of Finland, Dame Silvia Cartwright, former High Court judge of New Zealand, and Asma Jahangir, former President of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. The previous report personally initiated by UNSG Ban Ki Moon became the foundation for successive resolutions and investigations which is now being challenged by a domestic court in Sri Lanka for its illegality. UN will obviously use its immunity to hide its illegality but the fact that illegalities are taking place and shape is the message that should be conveyed to all UN General Assembly members. The present international investigation has failed to substantiate war crimes violations as per Geneva Conventions and IHL in relation to non-international armed conflict. In such a scenario when 2 international investigations with international experts have failed to provide clear proof with solid evidence why is there any need for another hybrid court which is a ruse to change the entire domestic systems at all levels (judiciary, legislative and executive) and have it under complete control of the UN & the West and minions like India?

The Lies

• On what basis can the Panel claim that there has been ‘discernible patterns of killings, for instance in the vicinity of security force checkpoints and military bases and also of individuals while in custody of security forces”. How can the panel make such a blanket statement like this without giving solid evidence? (unlawful killings)

The Contradictions

• If the report as per Summary says that it contains the principal findings ‘during the armed conflict in Sri Lanka’ why is it covering the period after May 2009?
• If the report as said in the Introduction was to cover the period covered by the LLRC why has the OHCHR exceeded the mandate by extending the investigation to 2011?
• If the accusation is that war crimes have been committed how can the accusations change just because ‘signals of engagement’ comes from the newly elected Government (Intro.2)?
• OHCHR report says that the report represents a ‘human rights investigation, not a criminal investigation’ but says that the team ‘attempted to identify the patterns of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law perpetrated not only during the final stage of the armed conflict but during the whole period covered by investigation’ (this does not make any sense)
• Denial of humanitarian assistance : on what basis is the Team claiming that it found ‘considerable restrictions on freedom of movement’ when it clearly says that the LTTE denied people freedom of movement?

Questionable statements in report

·         executed by a number of perpetrators within a hierarchical command structure. Such systemic acts cannot be treated as ordinary crimes but, if established in a court of law, may constitute international crimes, which give rise to command as well as individual responsibility” (on what grounds has these experts come to this conclusion?)

• the report is submitted to the Human Rights Council in a very different context to the one in which it was mandated” (how can the OHCHR do this? Using what clause or provision has the OHCHR changed the report?
• When the Human Rights Council adopted resolution 25/1 the Government of Sri Lanka ‘categorically and unreservedly rejected’ and refused to engage ‘in any related process’ – why has the HRC not given why the GOSL rejected resolution 25/1?
• If the GOSL vilified the OHCHR investigation in public didn’t the GOSL have reason to when blank forms repeatedly signed by the same people were being filled by pro-LTTE groups and submitted as witness statements for which the OHCHR did not give a satisfactory reply?
• If OHCHR claims of unrelenting campaign of intimidation and harassment against witnesses and representatives of civil society why have they not cited these names?
• Why is there a need to include details of the January Presidential election, the election of a PM, a 100-day program of constitutional reforms, 19^th amendment, and constitutional council – making it very fishy that all these changes were part of an overall western regime change program! Moreover the report goes to length to praise the new UNF for Good Governance and says that since January 2015 there has been ‘freedom of expression’. Other noteworthy remarks was the report’s mention of the appointment of 2 governors, the removal of checkpoints leading to the North but noted demilitarization has yet to happen. Are these not interference in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka and violating Article 41 of the Vienna Charter on Diplomatic Relations?
• Why is the report going to lengths to write about food insecurity, inflation, lack of livelihood opportunities when their scope did not cover these aspects?
• Can the investigators be allowed to use blanket phrases ‘in the militarized context-affected areas, they are extremely vulnerable to sexual harassment, exploitation and violence’ what subtle implications are they trying to insinuate?
• How can the report claim ‘existence of secret and unacknowledged places of detention’ when the present Justice Minister in June denied the existence of such. http://www.colombomirror.com/?p=3629 which the foreign minister Mangala Samaraweera also confirmed http://english.ttnnews.com/2015/05/09/mangala-samaraweera-has-denied-the-existence-of-secret-detention-camps-in-sri-lanka/
• On what basis does the international panel have any right to say that the GOSL has ‘not yet taken steps to delist the numerous Tamil Diaspora organizations and individuals proscribed under the PTA’ while omitting to mention that these Diaspora organizations were named and banned under UNSC Resolution 1373 as LTTE fronts.
• The HRC report cites the work of an NGO Freedom from Torture: Tainted Peace: Torture in Sri Lanka since May 2009” however the The Executive Committee of the Sri Lanka United National Association of Canada released a statement that report is based on alleged torture of about a dozen former Tamil Tiger fighters who escaped to the UK with the help of the LTTE front organizations at the conclusion of the armed warfare between the LTTE and the Sri Lanka Army which was concluded on May 19, 2009. It is apparent that these persons would not qualify for entry to the UK, and most likely agreed to be subjected to their bodies being burned with hot irons, cigarette butts, etc, at the hands of paid operators in the UK in order to make a case for asylum in that country and demonize Sri Lanka at the same time.” http://www.eyesrilanka.com/2015/09/29/tamil-tiger-front-organizations-produced-fabricated-reports-and-documentaries-at-the-unhrc-sessions/
• The HRC is also citing incidents of hate speech against the Muslims by producing reports of a Muslim NGO Secretariat for Muslims’ which questions the credibility and authenticity of HRC’s claim.
• HRC says that their findings point to ‘system crimes’ but has not been able to ‘establish the identity of those responsible’ but claims there are reasonable grounds to believe ‘gross violations of international human rights law, serious violations of international humanitarian law and international crimes’ amount to war crimes. (Principal findings of the investigation (IV) Having said above the Panel says ‘there are reasonable grounds to believe the Sri Lankan Security Forces and paramilitary groups associated with them were implicated in unlawful killings” how on earth did the Panel reach this conclusion?
• The report says ‘on the basis of the information obtained by the investigation team” (though who has provided the information is not given) there are reasonable ‘grounds to believe ‘the Sri Lankan Security forces and paramilitary groups associated with them were implicated in unlawful killings”
• If the investigation team says it has ‘documented long-standing patterns of arbitrary arrest and detention by government security forces and of abduction by paramilitary linked to them’ where is the documented evidence?
• On what substantiated proof and with what credible evidence is the Panel claiming that these abductions are taking place in ‘white vans’ and why is the Panel taking pains to link this to the PTA and seeking its removal through its report?
• Where is the ‘information’ that the team has been privy to for the Team to claim ‘widespread and systematic manner’?
• What are the ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ and based on which evidence is the Team saying that enforced disappearances may have been committed as part of ‘widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population given the geographical scope’ and what is the ‘time frame’ that the Team is implying?
• On what grounds that the Team says that ‘those who disappeared after handing themselves over to the army at the end of the conflict were deliberately targeted’ when 11,000 of the LTTE cadres who surrendered are all alive and 594 child soldiers were given a Presidential Pardon? With such hard proof what is the proof that the Panel has to say otherwise?
• Where is the ‘documented’ proof that the Sri Lankan security forces used torture after the armed conflict?
• What is the proof that ‘LTTE members and civilians were detained en masse’
• If the Panel says it has ‘documented proof’ why is the Panel saying ‘if established before a court of law, these acts may depending on the circumstances amount to crimes against humanity and/or war crimes? Why is the Panel trying to pull wool over everyone’s eyes.
• What is the ‘information’ that the Panel has gathered to make them feel that rape and other forms of sexual violence by security forces was widespread in the aftermath of the armed conflict? Didn’t the story of Nandani highlight the lies taking place and the fact that there were offices in the UK charging upto sterling pounds 6000 to be burnt by cigarette butts in the UK so that they could claim asylum after being coached to say that the Sri Lankan soldiers tortured them?  https://tamiltigeractivities.wordpress.com/2014/10/28/caught-red-handed-unhrc-blank-war-crimes-forms-in-the-hands-of-tna-ltte/ http://www.onlanka.com/news/unhrc-investigation-on-sri-lanka-an-organized-fraudulent-submission-process-favours-tamils-and-not-sinhalese-or-muslim-victims.html /http://www.sinhalanet.net/unhrc-investigates-sri-lanka-what-happens-when-the-other-side-is-caught-collecting-blank-submission-forms-with-signatures

The Panel on LTTE

• reasonable grounds to believe that the LTTE also unlawfully killed Tamil, Muslim and Sinhalese civilians perceived to hold sympathies contrary to LTTE”
• LTTE targeted rival Tamil political parties, suspected informers and dissenting Tamils, including political figures, public officials and academics as well as members of rival paramilitary groups.
• civilians were among the many killed or injured in indiscriminate suicide bombings and claymore mine attacks carried out by LTTE.
• If these are confirmed by a court of law and may amount to war crimes/crimes against humanity who in the LTTE will face trial since Prabakaran and key LTTE ground leaders are dead?
• Where is the source of information that the Panel has of a pattern of abduction leading to the forced recruitment of adults by LTTE until 2009? (why is there no reference to LTTE recruitment during the conflict)
• If the Panel says the LTTE’s abductions/forced recruitment and forced labor violated common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and obligations under international humanitarian law who in the LTTE will take this accountability?
• What is the source of the documented evidence that the Panel has on LTTE’s recruitment and use of children in armed conflict?
• When the TMVP Karuna Group had split from the LTTE why is the Panel only concentrating on them – are they implying that only TMVP recruited children and the LTTE did not? Moreover the UN were well aware of LTTE’s child recruitment, a Tamil served as UN Special Rapporteur and questions what the UN system and she did to protect these children other than writing reports and taking accolades for them!
• The Investigation team claims that the Sri Lankan Troops may have known that the Karuna Group recruited children and cites this as a violation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Optional Protocol. Using this same argument when the UN with all its reports of child recruitment by the LTTE it questions the UN’s own violation of its own laws too! What the Team is obviously trying to do is to target only Karuna exonerating the LTTE leaders for their recruitment of children.
• LTTE had a clear high-level policy of preventing civilians from leaving the Vanni, thereby unlawfully interfering with their freedom of movement.”
• The policy hardened in January 2009 although the specific instructions on how LTTE cadres should prevent anyone from leaving have yet to be clarified’.
• information gathered indicate that a number of individuals including several children were shot dead, injured or beaten by LTTE cadres as they tried to leave, in contravention of their right to life and physical integrity”….these acts are violation of international humanitarian law … and may amount to a war crime.
• by compelling civilians to remain within the area of active hostilities, LTTE also violated its obligation under international humanitarian law to take all feasible measures to protect the civilian population under its control’ – isn’t the whole story featured in this sentence. If the LTTE had released the civilians and not taken them with the LTTE there would be no loss of civilian life. It would have been a battle between the LTTE and the Armed Forces. If civilian casualties prevailed it was purely because the LTTE kept them by force, did not release them and shot at those who tried to flee from them.
• There are reasonable grounds to believe that LTTE also failed to respect its obligations to respect and protect humanitarian relief personnel and not to restrict their freedom of movement.”

Noteworthy points in Report

• ‘many of the attacks reviewed in the present report did not comply with the principles on the conduct of hostilities, notably the principle of distinction’ – who did not comply, what are the instances are not mentioned.
• What is the proportionality that the Team is referring to…. Afterall the Army saved close to 300,000 lives while the supposed ‘dead’ number cannot be proved as there are no mass graves or even skeletons for the 40,000 to 200,000 claimed to have been killed by third parties located outside Sri Lanka.
• The example of the hospital in the Vanni though ignoring that the LTTE were using the hospital to treat its cadres as well as firing from the hospital. The bombing on Kunduz hospital in Afghanistan by the US military still awaits UN’s response on similar lines.
• Team highlights ‘requirements of distinction’ but has no explanation to give for LTTE cadres firing in civil clothes or civilians who were combatants willingly while others were forced recruits. In such a scenario how does the UN provide the security forces the means of distinction! Noteworthy too that all 11,000 LTTE cadres that surrendered did so in civilian attire – if the argument that the security forces were indiscriminately killing held true how come all 11,000 are alive?
• The Team also highlights ‘effecting warnings’ – the security forces have enough of examples to show of flyers in Tamil air dropped, loud speaker messages transmitted and Tamil speaking people sent to advise the civilians how and where to move to safety. Was this not how the 300,000 Tamils were saved?
• The Team says it ‘did not find information suggesting that hospitals and other civilian facilities, including those of the UN were used by LTTE for military purposes” which source of information is the Team relying on to make this conclusion? This exposes the Team’s efforts to exonerate the LTTE for Tamil eyewitness accounts and the affidavits of the doctors serving in the last stages claim that the LTTE were using hospitals as cover including churches from where LTTE plucked children to send to the battleground.
• However when the Team does admit that the LTTE repeatedly constructed military fortifications and positioned artillery and other weaponry in close proximity often adjacent to civilian areas including humanitarian and medical facilities the Teams attempts to exonerate the LTTE blows itself up and questions the Teams conclusions.
• On what grounds does the Team say that the GOSL restricted humanitarian organizations and personnel to exercise their functions effectively? According to the law the GOSL need only to provide the access but statistics are available to showcase that it was not only the GOSL, the WFP, the ICRC and other entities all took relief items. The ICRC was in the Vanni till the 15^th of May 2009 and it was only after that they wound up operations after the last batch of civilians were released. Has the Team looked at the statistics of the ICRC and other entities and why have these not been made public for the people also to look at.
• On what grounds is the Team concluding that the relief sent to the Vanni was insufficient when there are photos of relief items being used as LTTE bunker safeguards instead of being shared among the civilians. There are civilians who are witnesses who claim they LTTE confiscated the food to be given to their cadres and their families and some civilians had to pay exorbitant amounts for food. Why have these witness accounts not been highlighted by the Panel?
• On what grounds can the Team claim that the IDPs were deprived of liberty when even banks opened offices inside the camps to enable the Tamils to deposit their jewellery and money? Why has the Team not cited that these Tamils most of whom did not have own lands or proper houses preferred to remain in these camps and enjoy free 3 meals a day plus afternoon tea with so many other hand outs?
• On what grounds is the Team claiming that right to health and adequate standard of living including food, water, and sanitation were denied? From where is the Panel sourcing this information to make these conclusions?
• Has the Panel forgotten how the Nuremberg Trials treated all Germans as being Nazi’s? They will know that this was not the same application in Sri Lanka because the LTTE cadres were taken away and kept separately from the civilians while screening of others took place. Moreover it was Tamils themselves who were pointing the culprits having suffered at the hands of the LTTE. People need to be reminded how the parents of Prabakaran were also hounded and almost attacked that the armed forces had to take them to safety elsewhere. https://ltteirony.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/and-who-looked-after-prabakarans-parents/

Our concerns

• If the UNHRC says that it is concerned by the lack of independence and follow up to the recommendations of the domestic investigations, the public in Sri Lanka are gravely concerned of the illegalities that the UN is resorting to by violating and interfering in Sri Lanka’s internal affairs while totally ignoring the very accusations UNHRC is making against Sri Lanka which are being violated by powerful countries. There cannot be two sets of laws inside the UN.
• Is the OHCHR aware that a Supreme Court ruling denies the former President Chandrika to hold any public office in view of her selling state land for which she was not only found guilty but had to pay the State.
• On what basis does the UNHRC have to question the credibility and effectiveness of the Presidential Commission to Investigate into Complaints regarding Missing Persons? UNHRC cannot simply use blanket statements superficially without substantiating on its remarks.
• If the UNHRC investigation was to cover period covered by the LLRC which was from 2002 to 2009 why is the Team spending time on writing about Welikada prison in 2002, Weliweriya in 2013, Mirisuvil murder in 2000 which is beyond the scope and mandate?
• The reference to mass graves in the UNHRC reports turns out to be another empty shell for the US lab reports show skeletal remains of Matale graves being pre-1940! http://www.dailymirror.lk/76921/contradictory-reports-on-matale-mass-grave-site while the Mannar supposed mass grave is in reality a cemetery. So much for the fuss! http://www.adaderana.lk/news.php?nid=26004
• As for other graves let it be clearly understood that the UN Secretary General himself travelled to Sri Lanka on 22 May 2009 just days after the conclusion of the conflict on 19^th May 2009 and went on a helicopter ride over the areas of conflict accompanied by photographers and media and if the implied 40,000 had been killed they should have photographed these newly dug graves and it would have been very visible too … that such was not found in any of the photos taken is clear that there is no such mass graves and no such killings except the hype instigated by vested parties.
• The UNHRC claims that the domestic courts are not equipped to ‘conduct an independent and credible investigation into the allegations reported’ our question is what has the UNHRC done about the allegations committed by the US & NATO in all of its military interventions since 2001 to even recommend a hybrid court set up?
• As far as the report is concerned there is nothing solid to pin point any war crimes or crimes against humanity being committed except a report full of statements that are either contradictory or questionable and without substance or supplementary evidence with sources.
• With regard to the claim of truth-seeking and accountability in looking at all the other Truth Commissions held and their failures it is understandable that Sri Lankan public does not wish to waste money or time in a futile exercise that would leave a handful of the same people richer and provide an opportunity for them to infiltrate into existing systems and tamper with them to change to fit into external agendas.
• On what grounds has the UNHRC the right to say that ‘new mechanisms should not be established under the Commission of Inquiry Act which has systematically failed to deliver results” what is the results that the UNHRC can boast of about the crimes that the US/NATO have committed since 2001 which violated the UN Charter?
• Does the UNHRC have any power or right to suggest the downsizing of a sovereign country’s police, security forces & intelligence?
• Does the UNHRC have any right to demand changes to the PTA or Public Security Ordinance Act?
• What is the evidence and who is providing the evidence to the UNHRC for it to conclude that the military retains an ‘oppressive presence in the war-affected areas of the north and east’?
• What is this ‘culture of surveillance and harassment’ that the UNHRC is commenting about not even visiting the country?
• Which country can the UNHRC give as an example of 100% functioning to all the terminologies that the UN throws at its members when the former UN General Assembly President has been accused of taking $1.3million in bribes?

Questioning the Recommendations of Report

• Why is the High Commissioner recommending a hybrid special court to try war crimes/crimes against humanity when the report doesn’t have proper evidence to showcase any crimes
• Why has the report only named the Sri Lankan Army and not the LTTE leaders?

• Why should the GOSL invite the OHCHR to establish a full-fledged country presence to monitor the situation of human rights and provide technical assistance when the conflict ended in 2009. If there UNHRC has issues on human rights it can be taken up during the UPR sessions why mix it up HR with IHL?

• Can the UNHRC name a single country success story where it has done service to the people of those country other than the nations that fund UNHRC initiatives?

• Can the UNHRC produce its score card of Truth Commissions held thus far and showcase the successes before Sri Lanka’s public agrees to a truth commission?

• The Constitutional Council comprises people of questionable character and this has been openly highlighted numerous times across media. Their integrity is in question and therefore they are not to be trusted.
• Let it be known that between January 2007 to November 2013, 8528 rapes across Sri Lankahttps://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2015/09/01/tamil-civilian-rapes-in-north-sri-lanka-18-by-sri-lanka-armed-forces-what-about-4000-by-indian-peace-keepers-2 / There are only 15 cases of rape by army personnel in 8 years (2005 to 2013) of which 8 army personnel have been discharged from the army indicating clear action taken by the military whilst parallel court of law inquiry has also been carried out. http://www.onlanka.com/news/how-credible-are-stories-of-rape-in-north-sri-lanka.html
• How can the UNHRC suggest that military be fired when there are already military courts and civil courts that have addressed wrong doings
• On what grounds is the UNHRC suggesting to return private lands when they should know that to claim land entitlement a valid deed has to be available and a state is not bound to give lands just because the UNHRC and the World comes down shouting at it.
• What interest the UNHRC is showing using its mandate that is meant to cover only the LLRC period by going out of its way to suggest repealing of existing Acts and introducing new systems which would entail the UNHRC to have sole control of how these mechanisms are run. In short UNHRC is subtly suggesting that Sri Lanka surrenders its sovereignty to the UN and UNHRC systems and allow them to decide which systems the locals should follow and those who might possibly challenge these subtly introduced systems are been taken care of by bringing allegations that would fire them from service or send them as peace keepers where they will face a barrage of allegations that would enable the UN to fire them at will.
• On what grounds does the UNHRC have to suggest that Sri Lanka adopt specific legislation to establish ad hoc hybrid special courts integrating international judges, prosecutors, lawyers and investigators mandated to try war crimes and crimes against humanity?
• What right does the UNHRC have to even recommend to ‘dispense the current Presidential Commission on Missing Persons’ and suggest to transfer these cases to a credible and independent institution?
• Before publishing unpublished reports the UNHRC needs to publish from where it has sought its sources to come to blanket conclusions that are questionable and raises alarm bells
• The UNHRC is suggesting that the UN and Member States provides technical and financial support and set a coordination mechanism among donors in Sri Lanka – why doesn’t the UNHRC first provide to the UN General Assembly the Ban Ki Moon report with the sources and witness accounts which the UNHRC did not table, the present UNHRC investigation report also with sources and witness account and allow a UN General Assembly appointed team that comprises members of both the East and West blocs to decide whether crimes against humanity or war crimes have been committed or not taking into consideration the laws under which Non-International Armed Conflict arises.
• The UNHRC in its recommendations have made a grave error in only claiming that Tamils have suffered totally ignoring the Sinhalese and Muslim victims both of whom were ethnically cleansed from their original habitats in the North and some of these victims have sent deeds accompanying their statements to the UNHRC investigators.

What is obviously clear is that even after the 2^nd international investigation there is no solid evidence that has been produced covering the conflict period to claim war crimes or crimes against humanity. Human Rights violations cited by the Team outside of the mandated period can be taken up at the UNHRC UPR sessions and should never have been included into a report that was supposed to cover the period LLRC was mandated. This goes to show that because a very spineless and Western-bowing government is now in power the UN system and Western interests together with servile India have made a strategic decision to use this as opportunities for their pivot to Asia policy and try to wriggle through and dictate how the entire local systems run by taking control of these and having their persons appointed to head them.

Usurping Sri Lankas sovereignty through the UNHRC Report is what should make all citizens of Sri Lanka alarmed about and oppose.

We do not wish to be darlings of the West/India/UN if we are to become their servants surrendering all our sovereign rights.

The people of Sri Lanka think the UN/UNHRC/West and India are shameless to ridicule the services of the Sri Lanka Armed Forces / Police and Intelligence and just make passing remarks on the LTTE while entertaining internationally banned LTTE fronts to VIP treatment inside the halls of the UN.

Shenali D Waduge

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/countries/AsiaRegion/Pages/LKIndex.aspx

Dr Sudath Gunasekara President Senior Citizens Movement Mahanuwara 4.10.2015 

Dear all,

Now the much hyped UNHCHR Resolution on Sri Lanka is unanimously passed, I feel we are standing on the brim of disaster and perhaps extinction as well, as a sovereign Nation.  No wonder it was unanimously passed as Sri Lanka itself did not object to a single close there in when the Sovereignty and independence of this nation was actually blatantly and brutally murdered by USA, UK and their allies. I do not propose to go in to details of the Resolution here as everyone is aware of its serious repercussions as already discussed by eminent people. Believe me it is only a matter of time. Therefore it is high time for you to awake and arise from the deep slumber and to organize the whole nation to save this 2500 year old heritage and your motherland from the twin attacks of neo-colonial invasions of the so-called International community and the unpatriotic, self seeking and power hungry corrupt politicians at Home. Please recall what happened and how it happened in 1815 and how badly we are caught up in the cruel grip of western Colonialism even today being unable to release ourselves from the curse of foreign domination.

I have no dollars or pounds or political power to give you to organize this rescue mission. I only can warn you of an imminent disaster with my wailing heart and plead you to awake and arise to rescue mother Lanka and the Sinahala nation before it is gone forever from the surface of this planet.

Let me draw your attention first to few major changes taking place in the geopolitical map of South Asia in the wake of the rapidly changing socio-economic, political and military superiority of the West and the emerging East Asia on the other as predicted by eminent Harvard academic Samuel Huntingdon in his famous thesis on Challenges of Civilization and the unusual interest the neo-Western Colonial powers are taking on Sri Lanka in that backdrop.

Secondly to some unfortunate events and historic betrayals taking place in Sri Lankan political scenario in these days at the behest of the Western world called the International Community lead by USA and UK with the active an effective support of the so-called Sri Lankan Tamil Diaspora, most of whom are not Sri Lankan citizens but full time citizens of those countries where they live now, migrated long time ago in search of greener pastures either from Sri Lanka or India but have a common dream of creating a Tamil EELAM in Sri Lanka which again has  its early roots in divide and rule colonial policy adopted by the British during their rule in this country. This so-called Tamil Diaspora, domicile in large numbers in most countries (particularly UK, Canada, Germany and USA), while directly influencing policy makers through their vote they also exert these international agencies like the UNO and World Bank, which they have infiltrated via their financial and political clout. The pull exerted by Tamilnadu and Central Government of India to pacify the hungry Tamil population in Southern India for political expediency also plays a crucial role on this conspiracy. This situation has come to stay as a major factor that influences the attitude of the so-called International Community as well as Agencies against a nationalist Government in Sri Lanka. As such the real situation is much worse and stronger than it was in 1815.

From a global geopolitical point of view Sri Lanka’s strategic location right at the center of the Indian Ocean between the West and the East flanked by nations not so friendly to America on the west and an open and broad Pacific Ocean with friendly Australia and New Zealand in the far East and anti-Chinese pro US India in the north and an open Ocean in the South has made it the most strategic point in this global power struggle. The fact that it provides the best Oceanic midway gateway to the East for the entire Western world with its strategic location and providing excellent naval and Airport facilities has made it the attraction of this world power struggle. The dependability on Diagogarcia and Okinawa for USA is under threat as both Pakistan and North Korea are not well disposed towards it. This is why both the USA and West are keen to gain control over Sri Lanka as the focal point in the Indian Ocean.  For China more than global strategic importance its significance as an entry point to India makes it indispensable.

The geopolitical significance bestowed on it by Mother Nature that had been the biggest blessing throughout its history appears to have become the biggest bane under this new situation. This is where Sri Lanka has to be extremely careful and play safe without antagonizing anybody. Though it looks like walking a tight rope there is no better way than following a non-aligned foreign policy under this critical situation. In this game of chess both the West and pro-US India would prefer a weak and pro-west Government in Sri Lanka. That is why they manipulated a conspiracy to oust pro-China and nationalist Mahinda Rajapaksa government and replace it with a weak and pro-western puppet Government under Ranil- Sirisena combination, that meekly submit to their dictates often displaying a no government situation at Home. This is why I think Sri Lankan people have to watch very cautiously and carefully as to how this geopolitical power struggle is revolving around Sri Lanka in order to prevent another 1815 tragedy.

Drawing our attention to the domestic scenario a closer scrutiny reveals, rather predicts, an alarming situation in the offing. It is indeed tragic to get in to another mess when we are still struggling to get out of the colonial clutches of the West and dependency even after 67 years of so-called political independence. Looking at the evolution of Sri Lankan history an optimist might perceive this only as another common episode of Sri Lankan history. Yes admittedly it is a platitude to say   history repeats. But I do not think there is any other country in the whole world where history has repeated so frequently and unfavourably at regular intervals with such disastrous results.

Rama invaded in Prehistoric times and Vibhisana betrayed his own Brother Ravana. But fortunately Rama never wanted to annex this country to Bharath Desh. He was only interested in rescuing Sita from Ravana’s captivity. With the advent of Vijaya, a north Indian Prince, in the 6^th century BC Kuveni a local Princess helped him to massacre all her kith and kin, married him and betrayed the Lankan Kingdom. But though Vijaya was an Indian, fortunately he also never tried to make this country a part of India or identify himself as a man of Indian Origin like the present day Tamils. He also did not change the name of the country either. Instead he got integrated and assimilated with the local people and their customs and he himself became a part of the soil. Only departure he did was that he brought his own people in sufficient numbers along with a Princess as his Queen but all of them got absorbed in to the local system.

This was followed by the advent of Mahinda Thera who introduced Buddhism to this country. Contrary to the previous event this was mainly a religious invasion san any political ambitions, perhaps the most welcome and benevolent in the history of this Island nation which set the wheels in motion for a new civilization in this Island. Those subsequent Indian invasions such as Sena Guttika and Elara (2^nd century BC), and Magha (12^th century AD) were only successful in occupying smaller areas in the NCP, of course the last having far reaching effects in shifting the Sinhala Kingdom to the South West. Again none of them also tried to change the name of the country or the culture, which was Sinhala Buddhist, of the country or claimed equal status for the languages, religion or cultures. They also never asked for separate political or administrative regions. Of course even if they had wanted to do so all of them were defeated in war by our patriotic warrior Kings and chased them out never to return.

On the contrary with the advent of the Western colonial invaders, Portuguese in the 1505, Dutch in 1667 and British in 1797 they all wanted to own this pearl of the Indian Ocean. They even change the name to Ceylon (though it was only an adaptation from Sinhale) and wanted to completely transform the Island’s culture to one of their own with their language, religion, food, customs and dress etc. They were successful in these fields to a certain extent but finally they also had to leave this country leaving behind some of their vestiges of colonial remnants only. But the most conspicuous thing one must note here is again none of them could radically change the solid foundation of the Sinhala Buddhist civilization in this country with the exception of British being able to leave behind much of their identity including the English Language, religion, dress, customs and habits, their legal and administrative systems behind. The last colonial power, the British, from the very inception adopted a divide and rule policy and conspired to divide this country on ethnic and religious bases mainly as Sinhala Buddhist and Tamil Hindu in order to kill the identity of this country as a Sinhala Buddhist country in the world map. One of the worst legacies the British left behind is the 1 million South Indian labor force on plantations which has turned out to be a serious political and socio-economic problem to this country. Even today it is the same vicious colonial policy Britain is following with the assistance of USA and the so-called western allies called International Community while getting India also to support it.

It is also interesting to note that during 443 years of western colonial struggle to take over this country there was only one King who subdued to their power. That is Don Juan Dharamapala of Kotte Kingdom who even changed his religion for survival and handed over his Kingdom to Portuguese. He also brought Saivaivist from South India and settled them all over his Kingdom and gave even Sri Pada to them. But neither Portuguese nor Don Juan Dharmapala could bring the whole country under Portuguese rule. The present day Karava and Salagama people who are supposed to have come from South India integrated and assimilated with the natives in every respect and today they have become the best Buddhists and most patriotic Sinhala people in this country.

Bringing the whole Island under any foreign power for the first time in our 2500 year old history was made possible only in 1815. That is by the British Colonial invaders. Nevertheless that too was not a capture of the island by the British though they wanted to do so as even then they considered this Island as the most priceless Island in the Indian Ocean.  The truth is that the British did it through a series of high handed conspiracies espionages through their able and cunning British Civil Servant John Doily who got the native Leaders of the Kandyan Kingdom deceived and persuaded under false promises to cede it to them. How much the British craved for this Island is revealed from the following quotation. In 1814 when a British official had dispatched the following message to the Colonial Secretary in London ‘The Big fish is in our net shall we raise it’. This was the reply he had sent back. Don’t worry the Sinhalese themselves will raise it for us”. That was the correct assessment shrewd Englishmen had made of our people by that time. In 1815 having misled by false promises made by the Englishmen, the Kadyan Chiefs exactly did that and handed over the motherland on a platter to the British who ruled for 133 years since then until 1948. This was the first time a foreign power was able to capture the whole Island in its long history beginning in 648 BC. Finally the British also had to leave the shores of this Island on Feb 4^th in 1948 leaving behind the indelible 2500 year old Sinhala Buddhist imprint intact in spite of certain random minor intrusions conspicuous in the socio-political fields.

It is this miraculous characteristic of this Nation both clergy and lay Leaders of this Island nation have to strive to comprehend before running to London, New York or Delhi meekly to show their ignorance of their own proud history and display their personal subservience and servility’. As for me I feel we should be ashamed as a nation having such a glorious history to have elected leaders of the caliber we have as politicians who are ruining and betraying this country today.

What is happening now I believe is a repetition of the same historical process that happened way back in 1815.  But this time the results are going to be much worst and disastrous. This time the same British Colonial power, who were craving to own this Island for centuries, has returned again with USA and the entire Western world to catch the Big fish in the Indian Ocean. This time in addition to the local unpatriotic and anti Sinhala and Anti- Buddhist forces they also have India and global Tamil Diaspora who are ever ready and conspiring to hand over the country purely for personal gain to the Western imperial forces of course each one having a different agenda. The main objective of the Western powers for the past five years since 2009 was a regime change which they have succeeded on Jan 8^th2015. So now that Mahinda Rajapaksa is apparently out of power, they are happy. That is why they have declared Sri Lanka a good boy. Nevertheless they may be postulating Sri Lanka as their future focal strategic point in the Indian Ocean in global power struggle. However whether that will materialize is a moot point as there are many obstacles both from inside and outside, particularly India, not because she loves us but she loves Indian security more. Therefore as one could safely expect a lull period in this regard I don’t foresee an immediate danger. With regard to the EELAM dream we may not debate it for the time being as I see that it only as a day dream of Tamils extremists, that will never become a reality. Because neither Sri Lanka nor India will allow it to be a reality as it will be another ISIS, a global monster to the entire world, if allowed to re-emerge.

Drawing a parallel between 1815 and 2015 I see in 1815 Ehelepola wanted first to take revenge from Sri Wickrama Rajasingha and then to be the King of Sinhale as promised by the British decoy Doily. The Kandyan chieftains perhaps in all their good intentions wanted to liberate the Sinhale from the South Indian Tamil hegemony. Ehelepola’s first dream of deposing and extraditing Sri Wickrama was done when he finally got Sri Wickrama Rajasinha captured at Madamahanuwara on 14^th Feb in 1815. But he could never be the King of Sinhale. Instead he was taken a prisoner on 2^nd March 1818 and died as a British captive on April in Mauritius Island in 1829. Abrogating all the promises contained in the Kandyan Convention the British by Royal proclamation of 21 of 1819 consolidated imperial hegemony over the Island of Ceylon and continued their shameless exploitation until 1948.

Though this country is supposed to have got political Independence in 1948 a careful perusal will reveal that what happened in 1948 was only a political masquerade. There is no denying that in 1948 we were allowed to elect our own government. But how can we say we have got Independence, when we have not got full ownership of our mother land ceded to the British in 1815, when we are continued to be ruled by a foreign system of Government and alien institutions, when limitations were imposed on us by the constitution designed by the colonial masters on us and, when our sovereignty is restricted, when justice is adjudicated under a foreign judicial system and over one million south Indian Tamil labourers who held British citizenship  were left behind on our motherland, when British owned the Katunayaka and Trincommallee Air bases, when the Governor was appointed by the Queen of England, when final appellate power of the Judiciary was vested with the British Privy Council and finally when the King of England was also the King of this country long after the so-called Independence was granted to us. In short even today Britain has its colonial mechanism of controlling this country both directly and indirectly through international cartels and agencies with impunity. The ridiculous behavior displayed by British PM Cameron when he visited the Commonwealth meeting last time and his exaltation that Britain has been instrumental in the United Nations (UN) investigation and adoption of the (UNHCHR) resolution last week clearly shows their Colonial attitude and mentality that continuous to be followed towards countries like ours.

In present day politics in Sri Lanka Chandrika, Sirisena and Ranil Wickramasingha wanted to avenge Rakapaksa for personal reasons and capture power, though Rajapaksa is also to be partly blamed for some of the blunders he made since 2009, the troika has done it. All other politicians both in UNP and SLFP only want to enjoy the luxuries of political office. They also have achieved it. None of these present day politicians from the President down to the Pradeshiya Sabha member is concerned about the welfare of the people as evinced by their behavior since Jan 8^th. Tamil politicians also wants power and Tamil Diaspora want to see their Eelam formed within Sri Lanka as they can never realize it within the Indian soil.  But that too will ever remain a day dream.

Chandrika-Ranil- Sirisena Troika in modern context also won the General elections in August, though marginally, and now has set up a 2 year hybrid administration, with all the undemocratic maneurings possible under the sun. The government they have invented has no parallel anywhere in the word. It is an amorphous animal with no sense direction or vision of governance couched in the magic word yahapalanaya. Of course it is excellent governance, rather sunshine days, for those who govern, but certainly not for the governed or the country.

Meanwhile some optimist people of this country also see this regime change as a temporary blessing in disguise as it has avoided a greater national disaster as the wolves of the International Community led by the USA would have taken much more serious steps in desperation to eliminate all patriotic national leaders in this country. It also appears to have reduced pressure on areas like economic sanctions and human rights etc.  Therefore we should be happy that we are blessed with an interval to breathe and to organize systematically all patriotic forces to liberate the country from these evil forces in due course. In the mean time I perceive some significant changes in the International political arena as well as internal power structures of the west as well as India are heading for trouble. The emerging problems created in the West by increasing rifts between Europe and US and within European States and the mess created by the millions of ISIS refugees surging in to Europe and agitating Tamil Diaspora all over and disintegrating tendencies emerging in India are all favourable signs for Sri Lanka.

Also no one knows at what time the Chandrika-Ranil-Sirisena honey moon will end. In all probability, I think it will be a nice crab dance until the water in the pot gets boiled only, like what is described in ‘Lipagini molawana tek diyaseliye- sepayak yei kakuluwa diyakeliye’ in Loweda Sangarawa. No one knows at what time the West might try to convert the present Government to a full time puppet Government under the command of the USA and UK. All ready, it has begun with the passage of the UNHCHR resolution last week. British PM Cameron has all ready said Britain has been instrumental in the United Nations (UN) investigation and adoption of this (UNHCHR) resolution and is committed to standing up for those affected by Sri Lanka’s civil war. Cameron’s statement clearly evince pro-Tamil and anti-Sinhala Buddhist British conspiracy that is coming down from 17^th century to destroy Sinhala Buddhist identity of this country.

Once their (UK and USA) dream is fulfilled, like what happened to the 1815 March Convention, whatever promises these parties have made this time will cease to exist and their hidden agendas will become operative. They will try to consolidate their naval (Trinco, Colombo & Hambantota) and Air power at Katunayaka and Iranawila. Both Ranil and Sirisena will end up as puppets or prisoners. India will also realize its blunders only then, after the match is over. Ranil and Sirisena duo will also realize their folly that they were only a cat’s paw used by the western imperialist to realize their cunning goals. Those who aspire for EELAM will also not get it. Hakeem and Digambaran might get some concessions in so far as they are used to keep us divided. The estate Tamils will have to produce tea eternally may be even under worst conditions, for the Western masters as their slaves and the vicious circle of suffering will go on. Modern betrayers both in UNP and SLFP will be cursed by the people. Eternally engage in battle with the Nn Tamils, estate Tamils and Muslims Sinhala Buddhists will have to look on until they attain Nibbana in this life itself in the deep Indian Oceana.

The Mahanayaka Theras and those of the Three New Nikayas that is UNP, SLFP and JVP will have to perform the Pansakula ritual of the Sinhala nation and their own very soon, if they don’t stop singing hosannas, don’t stop confiring their blessings to these corrupt and unpatriotic politicians for their Atapirikaras and lavish fruit bowls and come out of their ivory towers and cloisters and if they don’t play their age old traditional role as Lankan Bikkhus of Gautama the Buddha, to liberate the country and the Sinhala nation.

The only way to protect this country and the nation from this impending disaster is  for the Monks of the Theraputthabhaya, Kadahapola, Wariyapola Sumangala and  Gangodawila Soma or Ven Chiratu of Burma genre living all over the country to come out of their cloisters and to give spiritual and national leadership to this dying nation and to organize the masses around an unassailable Sinhala Buddhist Leader, perhaps an incarnation of Dutugemunu who loves the Country, Nation, Religion, Language and the people and who cannot be bought over with US $ and Sterling Pounds or any other mundane bribe of any sort, get down to the  battle field and fight until we restore what we lost for Magha invaders in the 13^th century with  a view to once again  re-creating the golden era of Anuradhapura.

I would like to conclude this note with a prophesy, attributed to Lord Buddha by the Mahanama, the celebrated author of Mahavansa- the Great Lineage of the Sinhala nation, and a verse written by Fr. Marcelline Jayakody a doyen of and an admirer of Sinhala socio-cultural tradition and its heritage.

‘Patissati Devinda-Lankayan mama Sasanan Tasma saparaivarantan –Rakka Lankancha sadukan’

(Oh Lord of Devas my dispensation will be established in Lanka. Therefore protect his (Vijayas) retinue and Lanka well with care) (Lord Buddha)

2500 years later from that date, this is how a Catholic priest in Sri Lanka wrote about the role of Mahasangha who made that prophesy a reality which proves beyond all reasonable doubts how  Buddha’s prediction has come true.

‘Aettak aeti setiyen kiva        yutte

Sivurai pana dii rata reka   gattte

Sivurei Helaye anu pana      aette

Adath nasinne me rata      matte’

(Fr. Marcelline Jayakody)

(A truth must be said as it is. It is the Robe that did protect this country by sacrificing life. In the Robe lies the second life of Helaya and even today it is they who sacrifice their lives on behalf of the country).

I cited the above two quotations to highlight the deep and inseparable bondage that exists between Buddhism, the monks and Lanka and its people. It also shows the role of the monks and their unique commitment in protecting the country and the Sasana. What more evidence is needed than the latter verse, to prove the eternal mundane and spiritual bondage that is found within a true Sinhala man to his traditional nationhood, irrespective of the present religion to which he belongs by design or accident?

I would like to request all Buddhist monks starting from the Mahnayaka Theras down to the novice in the village temple in this country to recall and recite the ancient epithet ‘Jatiye Muradevatavo’ referring to  role of Mahasangha in our society at least thrice a day starting from today.

The victory is ours if at least 1% of our Buddhist monks and Ten Patriotic Sinhala Leaders understand what I have said here and the eternal spirit and substance of what the celebrated and Patriot Catholic Priest Fr. Marcelline Jayakody has said.

I only sincerely wish and hope that all our Ven Buddhist monks from the four Mahanayaka Theras to the one in the village temple who subsist on the charity of their poor but devoted benefactors will realize the danger before the nation and awake from the deep slumber to command the whole nation in a clarion call to rise in unison to rescue the nation, if they wish to protect the motherland and the Sasana as they have always done it in history. I suggest, as a first step, they all immediately start a countrywide boycott programme of all politicians starting from the President downwards refusing to receive them and all their ill-gotten Atapirikara and rotten Fruit baskets. They also should ask all those UPFA & SLFP MPP who have betrayed the people by joining the hybrid Government to resign immediately as they have no mandate to do so.

Having said that I must also say that still have full confidence that no enemy can destroy this Land of the Buddha thrice blessed and sanctified by the Lord on four grounds. Firstly, the Buddha ‘s prophecy  as the Buddha’s Land and secondly, his confidence that his Sasana will be safer here but not in his land of birth-India, Secondly, the blessings and protection of the  Four Guardian gods and Thirdly, the power of the spiritual blessings and protection of the Sacred Tooth relict of the Lord and the Sacred Bo Tree  at Anuradhapura and finally interplanetary and cosmic influence on the Helanistic people in this country via Adam’s Peak.

From Rama through Magha to Prabhakaran including the mighty cannon guns of the western colonial invaders have failed to destroy this country. In the same way no god or human on earth or heaven or a natural disaster will be able to destroy this land, its people or its religion and heritage as far as the sun and moon will last!

The demise and nemesis is his he who tries to do so. This is my firm personal conviction as a true son of Lanka. May I be ever reborn on this sacred land again and again until I attain the final bliss?

Sasara wasana turu Nivan dakina turu

Pinketa randerane  yali upadinnata hetu wasana

Weva hetu wasana”! Weva hetu wasana”!

Dear All,

We, Global Sri Lankan Forum contacted his wife and family and made a visit.

And following actions have been taken.

1. Appointing  a senior lawyer to follow up the his Appeal – for this we are in contact with Gomin Dayasiri; and a senior lawyer is now being appointed – our initial budget for this is Rs. 300,000.00

2. Complete his partly built house – see the attached photos – the budget is Rs. 500,000.00 – for this we have  circulated a Face Book post – pls. refer  to attached FB link. We have assigned Ven. Bengamuve Nalaka Thero’s account for these projects.

https://www.facebook.com/GlobalSriLankanForum/photos/pcb.1651727171708377/1651726761708418/?type=3&theater

3. For his little daughter; 3 years, refer to attached photo – we are planning to give a scholarship from next January 2016 on ward Rs. 5,000.00 per month once she started  the pre-schools.

Let’s support this War Hero.

A pro-LTTE Tamil diaspora NGO in the UK has funded the entire court case fee for one Sinhala Lawyer.

It is shame no Sinhala lawyer appeared for him only a government appointed lawyer has appeared for him!

Let’s support him and his family.

Ajantha

Sargent Sunil Rathnayake’s Family

Ranjith Soysa

Keerthi Waranakuslsuriya the veteran defence columnist of Sunday Divaina was reporting from Geneva the treacherous role played by the individuals and NGOs et during the sessions of the OHCR for last two weeks. He had been covering the Geneva OHRC sessions for last 10 years and had set a record of 25 years of reporting as a defence correspondent of a Sri Lankan paper.

Keerthi had left Sri Lanka to Geneva when the VIP of the present Government had almost instructed the newspaper owners to be have a tight control over the reporting of the OHRC sessions. When Keerthi commenced detailed reporting from Geneva the irate VIP had summoned his henchmen to check about the whereabouts of Keerthi and publicly stated that the reports are written from Sri Lanka pretending the origin to be from Geneva. He has commanded some people to visit Keerthis’s house to check where he was.

The latest report filed from Geneva by Keerth W provides information about a number of NGOs and civil society members who were operating hand in glove with the shakers and movers of OHRC in finalizing the resolution against Sri Lanka. He mentions the names of the Centre for Justice and Accountability which had a special meeting with the USA representative to the OHRC, 11 pro Eelam organizations which had submitted a number of petitions to the OHRC members, the Global Diligence a London based organization which had provided legal advice , the collective of Democracy, Sri Kugan’s –brother of TNA MP

Sri Dharan- Eelam radio service in Europe, the Liberation organization which worked closely with the OHRC officials. The MPs of Sri Lanka Parliament , Suresh Premachandran, M..Sumanthiran, and Northern PC members, K.Sivajilingam, Anandi Sasaidhran were seen actively lobbying the OHRC members, M.Sumanthiran had a one to one meeting with the High Commissioner Hussian, A TV station based in Tamilnadu, Kanthi relayed all incidents relating to Sri Lankan resolution to Tamilnadu from Geneva to India.

The report demonstrated the strength of the anti- Sri Lanka lobby and the obvious partiality shown to the anti –Sri Lankan lobbyists by some officials at the OHRC and finally how Sri Lanka was compelled to acquiesce with the resolution of the USA and the West.

The freedom of expression is vital for the good governance propounded by the present Government and it is expected that Keerthi Warankulasuriya will be allowed to continue unhindered his very useful contributions to create awareness regarding the national defence and security of Sri Lanka.

Courtesy Divaina

පුවතක පසුබිම
මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිලයේ දෙබිඩි පිළිවෙත

යේමනයේ යුද අපරාධ චෝදනා විමර්ශනය කළ යුතු යෑයි දක්‌වමින් මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිලයට යෝජනාවක්‌ ඉදිරිපත් කළේ නෙදර්ලන්තයයි. යේමන් යුද අපරාධ ගැන සෙවීමට විශේෂඥයන් පිරිසක්‌ යවන ලෙස මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිලයෙන් ඉල්ලීමක්‌ද කළේ එම රාජ්‍යයයි. එම යෝජනාවට පෙර යුද අපරාධ සම්බන්ධව වාර්තාවක්‌ මානව හිමිකම් කොමසාරිස්‌වරයා ඉදිරිපත් කර එහි නිර්දේශද ඇතුළත් කර තිබිණි.
මේ අනුව යේමනයේ සිදු වූ යුද අපරාධ පිළිබඳ විමර්ශනය කිරීමේ ජාත්‍යන්තර විමර්ශනය ඉල්ලීම් බටහිර ආණ්‌ඩු එකවරම ඉල්ලා අස්‌කර ගනු ලැබීය.
ජීනිවා මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිල ශාලාවේ සිදුවන තක්‌කඩිකම් හා වෙනත් නීති විරෝධී ක්‍රියා මෙරට ජනතාවට වසන් වී ඇත.
එහෙත් උදේ 7.00 ට මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිලයට ඇතුළු වන අපිට මේ සියලු ක්‍රියා දකින්නට ලැබිණි. එකී ක්‍රියා ගැන විමර්ශනයක්‌ කිරීමටද මෙරට කිසිවෙක්‌ නැත. සියලු දේම සිදුවන්නේ නඩුත් හාමුදුරුවන්ගේ බඩුත් හාමුදුරුවන්ගේ ක්‍රියාදාමය මතය. එහෙත් රටේ ජනතාව මේ තොරතුරු දැනගත යුතුයි. ශ්‍රී ලංකාව සම්බන්ධයෙන් යුද අපරාධ චෝදනා විමර්ශනය කළ යුතු යෑයි තීන්දු කළ මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිලය යේමන් යුද අපරාධ විමර්ශනය ඉවත් කර ගත්තේය.
යේමනයේ යුද අපරාධ චෝදනා විමර්ශනය කළ යුතු යෑයි දක්‌වමින් මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිලයට යෝජනාවක්‌ ඉදිරිපත් කළේ නෙදර්ලන්තයයි. යේමන් යුද අපරාධ ගැන සෙවීමට විශේෂඥයන් පිරිසක්‌ යවන ලෙස මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිලයෙන් ඉල්ලීමක්‌ද කළේ එම රාජ්‍යයයි.
එම යෝජනාවට පෙර යුද අපරාධ සම්බන්ධව වාර්තාවක්‌ මානව හිමිකම් කොමසාරිස්‌වරයා ඉදිරිපත් කර එහි නිර්දේශද ඇතුළත් කර තිබිණි.
මේ අනුව යේමනයේ සිදු වූ යුද අපරාධ පිළිබඳ විමර්ශනය කිරීමේ ජාත්‍යන්තර විමර්ශනය ඉල්ලීම් බටහිර ආණ්‌ඩු එකවරම ඉල්ලා අස්‌කර ගනු ලැබීය. මේ නිසා මා අසල වාඩි වී සිටි යේමන් ජාතිකයෙක්‌ දැඩි ලෙස කෝප විය.
යේමනයේ හූටි සහ සලේ අතුරු හමුදා සිදු කළ යුද අපරාධ ගැන වාර්තාවක්‌ ඔහු මා වෙත ලබා දුන්නේය.
2015 අගෝස්‌තු දක්‌වා කාලය තෙක්‌ ළමුන් 400 ක්‌ කාන්තාවන් 381 ක්‌ මිනිසුන් 1827 ක්‌ ඝාතනයට ලක්‌ වී ඇතැයි එහි සඳහන් විය. එහෙත් සවුදි අරාබියව සහ ඇමරිකානු සහකාර රාජ්‍ය ලේකම් සමන්තාපවර් ජාත්‍යන්තර විමර්ශනයට තදින් එරෙහි වීය. ඒ සමඟම සවුදි රජයද යෝජනාවක්‌ ඉදිරිපත් කළේය. එහි සඳහන් වූයේ යුද අපරාධ විමර්ශනයක්‌ නොව යේමනයට මානුෂික ආධාර දිය යුතු බවයි.
යේමනයේ පිටුවහල් වී සිටින ජනාධිපති මන්සූර් හයිඩ් යුද අපරාධ ගැන සෙවීමට දේශීය යාන්ත්‍රණයක්‌ ස්‌ථාපිත කිරීමට හා එක්‌සත් ජාතීන්ගේ තාක්‍ෂණික සහය ලබා ගැනීමද ක්‍රියා කරන බව යේමනයේ මානව හිමිකම් ඇමැතිවරයා පවසනු ලැබීය.
සවුදි රජය ඊට එකඟ විය. යේමනයේ රජයට සවුදි අරාබියාව සහය දක්‌වයි. ජිනීවා මානව හිමිකම් කොමසාරිස්‌වරයා සිය වාර්තාවෙන් පසුගිය මාර්තු මස සිට යේමන් සිවිල් වැසියන් 2355 ක්‌ මියගොස්‌ ඇතැයි අනාවරණය කර තිබුණි.
එහෙත් විදේශ විනිසුරුවන් සහිත ජාත්‍යන්තර විමර්ශන යෝජනාව ඉල්ලීම බටහිර රටවල් හිටිහැටියේම ඉල්ලා අස්‌කර ගත්හ.
මේ නිසා මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිලය නටවන්නේ කවුදැයි සනාථ විය.
ඇමරිකානු තානාපතිහි සමන්තාපවර් එක්‌සත් ජාතීන්ගේ මහලේකම්ට හදිසි සන්දේශයක්‌ එවමින් යේමනයට සහනාධාර යෑවීම සඳහා සවුදි රජය ගත් තීරණයට ඇමරිකාව සහය පළ කරන බව කියා සිටියාය.
සමන්තාපවර් ශ්‍රී ලංකාව සම්බන්ධ යෝජනාව ගැන පැවසූවේ යුද අපරාධ විමර්ශනයක්‌ සිදුවිය යුතු බවයි.
එසේම ජාත්‍යන්තර විමර්ශනයක්‌ ඉල්ලා සිටි මානව හිමිකම් කොමසාරිස්‌ සෙයිද් රාද් හුසේන්ද යේමනයට එරෙහි යෝජනාව ඉල්ලා අස්‌කර ගැනීම ගැන වචනයක්‌වත් පැවසූවේ නැත.
ශ්‍රී ලංකාව සිදු කළ බවට චෝදනා එල්ල කර පොදු රාජ්‍ය මණ්‌ඩල විනිසුරුවරුවන්ගෙන් යුත් විමර්ශනයක්‌ පැවැත්විය යුතු යෑයි පැවසූ මානව හිමිකම් කොමසාරිස්‌ගේ දෙබිඩි පිළිවෙත මින් සනාථ නොවන්නේද?
මේ අතර සවුදි හමුදා සහ යේමන් හමුදා එක්‌ වී හූති ගරිල්ලන්ගේ පාලනය යටතේ පැවැති චාට්‌ අල් මස්‌ඩාච් සමුද්‍ර සන්ධිය සිය පාලනය යටතට ගනු ලැබීය.
මෙවන් ක්‍රියාදාමයක්‌ ගෙන් තහවුරු වන්නේ මානව හිමිකම් කොමසාරිස්‌වරයා ඇමරිකාව ප්‍රමුඛ බටහිර රටවල් දෑතේ නැමෙන රූකඩයක්‌ බවයි.
එහෙත් ඉන්දියාව නැටවීමට මානව හිමිකම් කොමසාරිස්‌ට හා ඇමරිකාවට නොහැකි විය.
ශ්‍රී ලංකාව සම්බන්ධ පරීක්‍ෂණ වාර්තාව සැසිවාරයට ඉදිරිපත් කර ජාත්‍යන්තර හයිබ්‍රිඩ් විමර්ශනයක්‌ පැවැත් විය. යුතු යෑයි මානව හිමිකම් කොමසාරිස්‌ තරයේ පවසන අවස්‌ථාවේ ඉන්දීය තානාපතිවරයා අසුනේ සිටියේ නැත.
ඒ ඇමරිකානු යෝජනාව යම් දිනෙක තමන්ට පාරාවලල්ලක්‌ වන බව ඉන්දියාව දන්නා නිසාය.
අපේ අසල්වැසි රට වු ඉන්දියාව එකී යෝජනාව ඉදිරිපත් කිරීමට සහය වුයේ නැත.
ඉන්දියාව මෙම තීරණය ගනු ලැබුවේ කාශ්මීරයේදී ඉන්දීය හමුදා නිලධාරීන් 800 ක්‌ මානව හිමිකම් උල්ලංඝණය කළ බවට වාර්තා වී තිබූ නිසාය.
මෙම පසුබිම මැද යේමනයේ මානව හිමිකම් උල්ලංඝණය වීම ගැන මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිලයට ඉදිරිපත් වූ යෝජනාව ඉල්ලා අස්‌කර ගත්තේ මන්දැයි කිසිදු රාජ්‍ය නොවන සංවිධානයක්‌ මානව කොමසාරිස්‌ගෙන් ප්‍රශ්න කළේ නැත.
කීර්ති වර්ණකුලසූරිය

ජිනීවා සංචාරයෙන් පසු මහ කොටි දෙදෙනෙක්‌  කැනඩා අත්අඩංගුවේ
කීර්ති වර්ණකුලසූරිය
යුද අපරාධවලට සම්බන්ධ යෑයි හෙළිවූ ප්‍රධාන කොටි ක්‍රියාකාරීන් දෙදෙනකු කැනඩා බලධාරීන් විසින් අත්අඩංගුවට ගෙන ඇත.
මොවුන් 2010 දී සන්සි නමැති කොටි නැවෙන් කැනඩාවට පැමිණ තිබේ.
සරණාගතයන් ලෙස දක්‌වමින් කැනඩාවට පැමිණි මොවුන් දෙදෙනා අන්තර්ජාතික පොලිසියේ ලැයිස්‌තුවටද ඇතුළත්වී ඇත.
ජෙගන් හා ක්‍රිෂ්ණන් යන අන්වර්ථ නාමයන්ගෙන් හඳුන්වන මොවුන් කොටින්ගේ චාල්ස්‌ ඇන්තනි බළකායේ සේවය කර ඇත.

මෙරට කටයුතුවලට ස්‌විස්‌ අතපෙවීම් දැඩි වෙලා
කීර්ති වර්ණකුලසූරිය
ස්‌විස්‌ටර්ලන්ත රජය මෙරට අභ්‍යන්තර කටයුතුවලට බරපතළ ලෙසින් මැදිහත්වන බව හෙළිවී ඇත.
ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ දණ්‌ඩ නීති සංග්‍රහය වෙනස්‌ කිරීම හා ජාත්‍යන්තර අධිකරණයට අදාළ රෝම සම්මුතියට අත්සන් කරන ලෙස ස්‌විස්‌ රජය මෙරටින් ඉල්ලා තිබේ.
මෙකී ඉල්ලීම් මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිලයටද ඉදිරිපත් කර ඇත.
එහෙත් ස්‌විස්‌ රජයේ ඉල්ලීම්වලට ශ්‍රී ලංකා රජය එකඟත්වය පළකර නැත.

කොටි හිතවාදීන් ජිනීවා
ගෙන්වන ‘සෙන්නිල්’ හෙළිවේ

කීර්ති වර්ණකුලසූරිය
ශ්‍රී ලංකාවට එරෙහිව ජිනීවා මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිලය වෙත ඊලාම්වාදීන් ගෙන්වීමට අරමුදල් වැය කරන ප්‍රධාන පුද්ගලයා සෙන්නිල් නමැත්තකු යෑයි අනාවරණය වී ඇත.
අරමුදල් සපයන මොහු ගැන මෙතෙක්‌ හෙළිවී නොතිබිණි.
සෙන්නිල් ගැන හෙළිවී ඇත්තේ බ්‍රිතාන්‍ය මන්ත්‍රී ලී ස්‌කොට්‌ විසින් අරමුදල් සපයන ලෙස ඉල්ලා සෙන්නිල්ට යෑවූ හදිසි එස්‌. එම්. එස්‌. පණිවුඩයකිනි.
ජිනීවා වෙත පැමිණෙන බ්‍රිතාන්‍ය තමිල්නාඩු සහ ශ්‍රී ලාංකික ද්‍රවිඩ සිවිල් සංවිධාන ක්‍රියාකාරීන්ට ඉඳුම් හිටුම් ගුවන් ප්‍රවේශපත්‍ර ප්‍රවාහන පහසුකම් සපයන්නේ සෙන්නිල් යෑයි අනාවරණය වී ඇත.
ඔහු මෙවර ශ්‍රී ලංකාවට එරෙහිව විදේශිකයන් 34 ක්‌ ජිනීවා වෙත ගෙන්වා තිබිණි.

ජිනීවා කවුන්සිලයේ කණ්‌ඩායම් 6 ක්‌ ශ්‍රී ලංකාවට එති

කීර්ති වර්ණකුලසූරිය
ජිනීවා මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිලයේ කණ්‌ඩායම් 6 ක්‌ ඉදිරි දෙවසර තුළ ශ්‍රී ලංකාවට පැමිණෙනු ඇත.
මෙම කණ්‌ඩායම් හය පැමිණෙන්නේ ජිනීවාහිදී සම්මත වූ යෝජනාව ගැන ශ්‍රී ලංකාව ගත් ක්‍රියාමාර්ගවල ප්‍රගතිය නිරීක්‍ෂණය කිරීමටය. මෙකී කණ්‌ඩායම් එම යෝජනාවේ සඳහන් කරුණුවලට අදාළ ක්‍ෂේත්‍ර ගැන ද සොයා බලනු ඇත. ජිනීවා යෝජනාවේ ප්‍රගතිය ගැන ශ්‍රී ලංකා රජය 2017 මානව හිමිකම් සැසිවාරයට වාර්තාවක්‌ ඉදිරිපත් කිරීමට නියමිතය.

ශ්‍රී ලංකාවට සමාව දෙන්න බෑ ( Courtesy Island)
නවිපිල්ලේ බැනගෙන බැනගෙන යයි

ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ සිදුවූ බරපතල අපරාධ සම්බන්ධයෙන් කිසිම කෙනකුට සමාවක්‌ දිය නොහැකි බවත් ශ්‍රී ලංකා රජයට හෝ වෙනත් ආණ්‌ඩුවකට එලෙස සමාව දීමට කිසිසේත් හැකියාවක්‌ නැති බවත් හිටපු මානව හිමිකම් කොමසාරිස්‌ නවිපිල්ලේ මහත්මිය පැවසුවාය.

ජිනීවාහි යෝජනාව සම්මත වීමෙන් පසුව මේ බව පැවසූ නවිපිල්ලේ කිසිදු යුද අපරාධයකට මුක්‌තිය ලැබෙන්නේ නැතැයිද කීවාය.

ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ ද්‍රවිඩ වැසියන් හතළිස්‌ දහසක්‌ ඝාතනය වී ඇති බව පැවසූ පිල්ලේ මහත්මිය ඉන්දියාව හා දකුණු අප්‍රිකාව ශ්‍රී ලංකාවට සහාය වීම ගැන චෝදනා කළාය. එල්. ටී. ටී. ඊ. සංවිධානය ගැන කිසිදු වචනයක්‌ සඳහන් නොකළ නවිපිල්ලේ පසුගිය රජයේ අරමුණ වී ඇත්තේ ද්‍රවිඩ කණ්‌ඩායමක්‌ විනාශ කිරීම බවද කියා සිටියාය.

ශ්‍රී ලංකාව එක්‌සත් ජාතීන්ගේ ආරක්‍ෂක මණ්‌ඩලය වෙත ගෙන යැමට ක්‍රියා නොකිරීම ගැනද ඇය චෝදනා කළාය.

ඇමරිකානු යෝජනාවෙන්
අරමුණු ඉටු නොවී දෙමළ සන්ධානය කම්පා වේ

කීර්ති වර්ණකුලසූරිය ජිනීවා සිට
ඇමරිකානු යෝජනාව මගින් උතුරේÊසිටින සියලු හමුදා සේනාංක ඉවත් කර ගැනීමට ද්‍රවිඩ සන්ධානය සහ රාජ්‍ය නොවන සංවිධාන දැරූ උත්සාහය අසාර්ථක වී ඇත.
ද්‍රවිඩ සන්ධාන හිටපු මන්ත්‍රී සුරේෂ් ප්‍රේමචJද්‍රන්, ද්‍රවිඩ සන්ධාන මන්ත්‍රි ශ්‍රීධරන්, ද්‍රවිඩ ජනතා පක්‍ෂයේ නායක ගඡේJද්‍රකුමාර්Êපොන්නම්බලම් සහ උතුරු පළාත් සභා මන්ත්‍රීනී ආනන්දි සසිදරන් ඇතුළු පිරිස මේ නිසා දැඩි කම්පනයට පත්ව තිබේ.
උතුරේ සිටින හමුදා සේනාංක ඉවත් කළ යුතු බවට ජිනීවා පරීක්‍ෂණ වාර්තාවේ සඳහන් කර තිබිණි.
දේශීය පරීක්‍ෂණයකට පෙර උතුරින් හමුදාව ඉවත් කරන ලෙස අපි ඉල්ලා සිටියා. එය අපේ මූලික අවශ්‍යතාව බව මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිලයට දැනුම් දුන්නා. යෑයි සුරේෂ් ප්‍රේමචJද්‍රන් පැවසීය.
ජිනීවා පරීක්‍ෂණ වාර්තාවේ නිර්දේශ රැසක්‌ ඇමරිකානු යෝජනාවට ඇතුළත් කර නැතැයි ද ඔහු කියා සිටියේය. බලාපොරොත්තු රහිත ලෙස ඊළාම් ඩයස්‌පෝරාවේ ඉල්ලීම් ඇමරිකානු යෝජනාවට ඇතුළත් නොවීම නිසා ඇමරිකානු හියුමන් රයිට්‌ස්‌ වොච් ඉන්ටර්නැෂනල් ක්‍රයිසස්‌ ගෲප් සහ විදේශ රාජ්‍ය නොවන සංවිධාන ප්‍රධානීන් දැඩි නොසතුටට පත් වී ඇත.

ඇමරිකානු යෝජනාව පසුගිය බදාදා ජිනීවා මානව හිමිකම් සැසිවාරය හමුවේ සභාගත කෙරුණ අතර ඊට පෙර ද්‍රවිඩ සන්ධානය, ප්ලොට්‌, ඊ.පී.ආර්.එල්.එµa. සහ ටී.පී.එන්.එµa. පක්‍ෂ ඇතුළු සිවිල් සංවිධාන 40 ක්‌ මානව හිමිකම් කොමසාරිස්‌ වෙත සන්දේශයක්‌ යවමින් පූර්ණ විමර්ශනයක්‌ අවශ්‍ය බව දන්වා තිබේ.
ශ්‍රී ලංකාව සම්බන්ධ පූර්ණ විමර්ශනයක්‌ පැවැත්වීම නොකළ යුතු යෑයි ඉන්දියාව ද ඇමරිකානු බලධාරීන්ට දැනුම් දී ඇත.

වාර්තාව ඉදිරිපත් කරන විට ඉන්දියාව නිහඬයි

කීර්ති වර්ණකුලසූරිය ජිනීවා සිට
ශ්‍රී ලංකාව සම්බන්ධව මානව හිමිකම් කොමසාරිස්‌ සෙයිද් රාද් හුසෙන් වාර්තාව ඉදිරිපත් කළ අවස්‌ථාවේ ඉන්දියාව කිසිදු ප්‍රකාශයක්‌ කළේ නැත. එහෙත් තමිල්නාඩුවේ හිටපු සෞඛ්‍ය ඇමැති රාම්දොaස්‌ නමැත්තා පසුපති කසාගම් නමැති රාජ්‍ය නොවන සංවිධානය නියෝජනය කරමින් මානව හිමිකම් සැසි වාරය අමතමින් ශ්‍රී ලංකාව සම්බන්ධ ජාත්‍යන්තර විමර්ශනයක්‌ අවශ්‍ය බව පැවැසීය.
ඉන්දීය තානාපතිවරයා වාර්තාව ප්‍රකාශ කරන අවස්‌ථාවේ මානව හිමිකම් ශාලාවේ අසුන්ගෙන සිටියේ නැත.

ජිනීවා වාර්තාවට සහ යෝජනාවට අපි රැවටුණා
– උතුරු පළාත් සභා මන්ත්‍රීනි ආනන්දි සසිදරන් දිවයිනට කියයි

ශ්‍රී ලංකාවට එරෙහිව ජිනීවා මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිලයට යෝජනාවක්‌ ඉදිරිපත් වූ ආකාරය අතිශයින්ම පුදුම සහගතය. ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ ජනතාවට මේ තොරතුරු වසන් වී තිබුණි. ජාත්‍යන්තර විනිසුරුවන් නඩු අධ්‍යක්‍ෂවරුන් සහ විමර්ශකයන්ගෙන් සමන්විත හයිබ්‍රිඩ් අධිකරණයක්‌ ස්‌ථාපිත කළ යුතු බවට මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිලයට දැඩි බලපෑම් ඇති කළේ ඇමරිකානු හියුමන් රයිට්‌ස්‌ වොච් සංවිධානයයි.

එසේම මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිලයට යෝජනාවක්‌ ඉදිරිපත් කිරීම සඳහා අවසර දී තිබූ නිල කාල සීමාව ඉක්‌මවා පැය පහකට පසු ශ්‍රී ලංකාව සම්බන්ධ යෝජනාව ඉදිරිපත් කරනු ලැබීය.

ශ්‍රී ලංකාව සම්බන්ධ යෝජනාව ඉදිරිපත් කරනු ලැබුවේ යුගෝස්‌ලාවියාවෙන් වෙන් වී රටවල් බවට පත් වූ මැසිඩෝනියාව සහ මොන්ටිනියරෝ යන රටවල්ය. එසේම ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ ආරක්‍ෂක හමුදාව ප්‍රතිසංස්‌කරණයට ලක්‌විය යුතු බවද එකී යෝජනාවේ සඳහන් විය.

මෙහිදී නැගෙන බරපතල ප්‍රශ්නය නම් බෙදුම්වාදය මත බිහි වූ මැසිඩෝනියාව සහ මොන්ටිනියරෝ වැනි රටවල් ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ අභ්‍යන්තර ප්‍රශ්නයකට මැදිහත් වීමයි. මෙකී යෝජනාවෙන් එක්‌සත් ජාතීන්ගේ ආර් 2 පී යන (R2ඡ) යන පිළිවෙත ශ්‍රී ලංකාව සම්බන්ධයෙන් ක්‍රියාත්මක වී ඇත. මෙම ආර් 2 පී පිළිවෙත තුළින් දක්‌වන්නේ යම් රටක ජන සමූහයක්‌ සංහාරයට ලක්‌වන්නේ නම් එක්‌සත් ජාතීන්ගේ සංවිධානයට මැදිහත් වීමේ හැකියාවයි.

ඇමරිකානු සහ බ්‍රිතාන්‍ය ප්‍රමුඛ රටවල් හතර සභාගත කළ ශ්‍රී ලංකා යෝජනාව පිළිබඳව කපටි කමක්‌ කර තිබුණි. ඒ විදේශ විනිසුරුවන් වෙනුවට පොදු රාජ්‍ය මණ්‌ඩල විනිසුරුවන් ස්‌ථාපිත කළ යුතුය යන්නයි. නඩුත් හාමුදුරුවන්ගේ බඩුත් හාමුදුරුවන්ගේ යන කියමන සනාථ කරමින් ශ්‍රී ලංකාව සම්බන්ධ යෝජනාව පසුගිය බ්‍රහස්‌පතින්දා සවස 5 දක්‌වා කල් දැමිය යුතු යෑයි සාමාජික රටවල් කළ ඉල්ලීමටද මානව හිමිකම් කොමසාරිස්‌ගේ අනුමැතිය ලැබුණි. එහෙත් යෝජනාව ඉදිරිපත් වූයේ සවස 6 ටය.

මෙම යෝජනාව පිළිබඳව ඉන්දියාවද අපූරු ප්‍රකාශයක්‌ කළේය. අපි යුක්‌තිය සඳහා සහය වන්නෙමු. එසේම ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ ස්‌වෛරීභාවයට ගරු කරන්නෙමු යෑයි ඉන්දීය විදේශ කටයුතු අමාත්‍යංශයේ ප්‍රකාශක විනාස්‌ ස්‌මාරන් පැවසීය.

යුක්‌තිය ගැන කතා කරන ඉන්දියාව තම සාම හමුදාව ද්‍රවිඩ සිවිල් වැසියන් ඝාතනය කිරීම ගැන යුක්‌තිය ඉටු කළ යුතු බව ප්‍රකාශ කර නැත. එසේම ඉන්දීය හමුදාව රන්දෙවොල මෙහෙයුමේදී මරුමුවට පත් සිවිල් වැසියන් වෙනුවෙන් යුක්‌තිය ඉටු කළේ නැත.

පිටු හයකින් සමන්විත මෙම ශ්‍රී ලංකා යෝජනාව ඇමරිකානු ආරක්‍ෂක ක්‍රමවේදයේ තවත් පියවරකි.

මෙම යෝජනාව අනුමත කිරීම සඳහා සැප්තැම්බර් 30 මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිලය වෙත ඉදිරිපත් කිරීමට පෙර සෙන්ටර් ෙµda ජස්‌ටිස්‌ ඇන්ඩ් එකවුන්ටබලිට්‌ නැමැති සංවිධානය ජිනීවා ඇමරිකානු නියෝජිත කෙයින්හාපර් වෙත හදිසි සන්දේශයක්‌ යවමින් මෙලෙස පළ කර තිබුණි.

“ගතවූ වසර දෙක මුළුල්ලේ අපි ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ සිවිල් සංවිධාන සමග එක්‌ව ක්‍රියා කළෙමු. මේ නිසා ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ හයිබ්‍රිඩ් අධිකරණයක්‌ ස්‌ථාපිත කළ යුතු බවට මානව හිමිකම් කොමසාරිස්‌ ගෙන ආ නිර්දේශය ක්‍රියාත්මක කරන ලෙස ඉල්ලමු.”

මේ සන්දේශයට අත්සන් කර ඇත්තේ එකී සංවිධානයේ විධායක අධ්‍යක්‍ෂක ඩික්‌සන් ඔස්‌බර්න් නැමැත්තෙකි.

මෙයට සමානව ඊලම් සංවිධාන 11 ක්‌ද මානව හිමිකම් කොමසාරිස්‌ වෙත ලිපියක්‌ යවමින් ජාත්‍යන්තර අධිකරණයක්‌ ස්‌ථාපිත කරන ලෙස ඉල්ලා තිබූ අතර ඊට එමානුවෙල් පියනම මෙහෙය වන ගෝලීය ද්‍රවිඩ සංසදය අත්සන් කර නොතිබුණි. මේ අතර ඇමරිකාවේ සිට ක්‍රියාත්මක වන රටින් බැහැර ඊළම් ආණ්‌ඩුව නැමැති සංවිධානය ඇමරිකානු යෝජනාවට මුවාවී ශ්‍රී ලංකාවට එරෙහි ජාත්‍යන්තර විනිසුරුවරුන්ගෙන් යුත් විමර්ශන මණ්‌ඩලයට කරුණු හතක්‌ ඇතුළත් කළ යුතු බවට මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිලයට යෝජනා කළේය.

ඒ සඳහා ඔවුන් ලන්ඩන් නුවර ග්ලෝබල් ඩිලිජන්ස්‌ නැමැති නීති සමාගමේ සහය පතා තිබුණි. මෙම නීති උපදේශ අනුව එකී විමර්ශන මණ්‌ඩලයට සිංහල හා ද්‍රවිඩ නීතිවේදීන්ද ඇතුළත් කළ යුතු බව සඳහන් කර ඇත. එසේම ඇමරිකානු යෝජනාවට ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ රාජ්‍ය නොවන සංවිධානයක්‌ වූ රයිට්‌ස්‌ නම් සහ කලෙක්‌ටිව් ඔµa ඩිමෝක්‍රසි වඩාත්ම සතුටට පත් වී ඇත. ජාත්‍යන්තර විනිසුරුවරුන්ගෙන් යුත් විමර්ශන මණ්‌ඩලයක්‌ පත් කිරීමට මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිලය තීරණය කිරීම පිළිගන්නා බව ඩොලර්වලින් යෑපෙන එකී සංවිධානය පවසා ඇත. මෙම පසුබිම මැද හිටපු කාටුන් ශිල්පියකුගේ බිරිය වූ සන්ධ්‍යා එක්‌නැලිගොඩ ජිනීවා මානව හිමිකම් සැසිවාරයේදී ශ්‍රී ලංකාවට එරෙහිව “තවත් බෝම්බයක්‌” පතිත කළාය.

” ශ්‍රී ලංකා හමුදාව වන්නි මෙහෙයුමේදී රසායනික අවි භාවිතා කළ බව ඇය පැවසූවේ එකී අවි පාවිච්චි කළ බව සියෑසින් දුටුවාක්‌ මෙනි. එහෙත් භාවිතා කළ රසායනික අවි කුමක්‌දැයි ප්‍රකාශ කිරීමට ඇයට නොහැකි විය. ඇමරිකාව සහ ඉන්දියාව පවා ශ්‍රී ලංකා හමුදාව රසායනික අවි භාවිතා කළ බව ප්‍රකාශ කළේ නැත. එසේ නම් ඇය මේ භයානක ප්‍රකාශය කළේ කාගේ අවශ්‍යතාවයටද? තහනම් ආයුධයක්‌ වු තර්මෝ බැරික්‌ අවි පවා කොටිළඟ තිබී හමුවිය. එහෙත් ඇය ඒ බව නොදනී. රසායනික අවි ගැන ඇය නොදන්නා බව පැහැදිලිය.

මේ තත්ත්වය මත තහවුරු වූයේ දෙස්‌ විදෙස්‌ රාජ්‍ය නොවන සංවිධානවල ශ්‍රී ලංකා විරෝධී මෙහෙයුමයි. මේ අතර ප්‍රංශයේ සිට සෑම වසරකම මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිලයට පැමිණි ශ්‍රී ලංකා විරෝධී ඊළම්වාදියකු වූ තිරුබාහරන් නොහොත් හිඟන තිරුබා මෙවරද මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිලයට පැමිණ සිටියේය.

මම ශ්‍රී ලංකාවට පැමිණියා මාව නතර කරන්න කාටත් බැරි වුණා යෑයි මේ රාජ්‍ය නොවන සංවිධාන ක්‍රියාකාරියා මහත් උජාරුවෙන් පැවසීය. එහෙත් ද්‍රවිඩ සංධානයේ මන්ත්‍රීවරු සහ ගඡේන්ද්‍ර කුමාර් පොන්නම්බලන්ද තුට්‌ටුවකටවත් ගණන් ගත්තේ නැත.

ද්‍රවිඩ සංධාන මන්ත්‍රී එස්‌ ශ්‍රීධරන්ගේ සොහොයුරු ශ්‍රී කුගන් මෙහෙයවන යුරෝපා ඊලම් ගුවන් විදුලියට මුල්වරට මඩකලපුවේ කාර්යාලයක්‌ ස්‌ථාපිත කිsරීමට හැකි විය.

ශ්‍රී ලංකාවට එරෙහිව දැඩි සාවද්‍ය ප්‍රචාර දියත් කළේ මෙම යුරෝපා ගුවන් විදුලි සේවයයි.

මෙම වාතාවරණය මැද මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිලයේ ප්‍රකාශිකා රවිනා සම්සමානී පැවසුවේ කොටින්ට අරමුදල් සැපයූ පාර්ශවවලටද දඬුවම් කිරීම කළයුතු බවයි. එහෙත් කොටි සමග එක්‌ව කටයුතු කළ ද්‍රවිඩ සංධානයට එරෙහිව කිසිදු පියවරක්‌ ගන්නා බව ඇය පැවසූවේ නැත.

මෙකී පසුබිම මැද ශ්‍රී ලංකා හමුදාවට එරෙහිව ජාත්‍යන්තර පරීක්‍ෂණයක්‌ ඉල්ලන්නේ කොටි සමග එක්‌ව ක්‍රියා කළ ද්‍රවිඩ සංධානයයි. මේ ගැන හිටපු මානව හිමිකම් කොමසාරිස්‌ නවිපිල්ලේගෙන් විමසූ විට ඇය පැවසුවේ ද්‍රවිඩ සංධානයට එරෙහිව ක්‍රියා කළ යුත්තේ ශ්‍රී ලංකා රජය බවයි. එහෙත් පසුගිය රජය ඒ ගැන ක්‍රියා කළේ නැත.

කෙසේ වෙතත් මෙරට රාජ්‍ය නොවන සංවිධාන, ඊළම් ඩයස්‌පෝරාව සමග එක්‌ වූ විදෙස්‌ රාජ්‍ය නොවන සංවිධාන ශ්‍රී ලංකාව අන්තර් ජාතික අධිකරණය වෙත ගෙන යැම සඳහා අතිවිශාල මුදල් සම්බාරයක්‌ වැය කර ඇතැයි අනාවරණය විය.

ඇතැම් රාජ්‍ය නොවන සංවිධානවලට මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිලය ඇමැතීමට බටහිර රටවල සහයද ලැබී තිබූ අතර එක්‌සත් ජාතීන්ගේ මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිලයේ දේශපාලන අංශය ඒ සඳහා නිර්දේශ කර තිබූ බවද හෙළි විය.

“ලිබරේෂන්” නමින් හඳුන්වන විදෙස්‌ රාජ්‍ය නොවන සංවිධානයට ලබාදුන් නිර්දේශයක පිටපතක්‌ ජිනීවා මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිලයේ විශ්වාසදායක පාර්ශවයන් මගින් අප වෙත ලැබිණ.

ඊළම් ඩයස්‌පෝරාවට ශ්‍රී ලංකාවට එරෙහිව ප්‍රකාශයක්‌ කිරීමට අවශ්‍ය නම් ලිබරේෂන් සංවිධානයට කුලියක්‌ ගෙවා දේශනයක්‌ පැවැත් විය හැකිය.

මෙවර ජිනීවා මානව හිමිකම් සැසිවාරයට බෙංගාලයේ සිටින ඊළම් වාදියකු වූ පෝල් නිව්ටන්ද පැමිණ සිටියේය. ඔහු මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිල ශාලාවක්‌ අසලදී තමිල්නාඩුවේ කන්ති රූපවාහිනිය සමග සාකච්ඡාවකට සම්බන්ධ විය. ශ්‍රී ලංකාව යුද අපරාධ කර ඇති බවත් අන්තර්ජාතික අධිකරණයක්‌ මගින් දඬුවම් කළ යුතු බවත් ඔහු කියා සිටියේය.

තමිල්නාඩුවේ චෙන්නායි නුවර පිහිටි කන්ති රූපවාහිනිය ශ්‍රී ලංකාවට අදාළව මානව හිමිකම් සැසිවාරයේදී ගනු ලබන තීරණ එම අවස්‌ථාවේම විකාශනය කිරීම හරිහරන් නැමැති මාධ්‍යවේදියා එවා තිබුණි.

එසේම ජිනීවා පැමිණි ද්‍රවිඩ සංධාන මන්ත්‍රී එම් සුමන්තිරන්ට මානව හිමිකම් කොමසාරිස්‌ සෙයිද් රාද් හුසේන් හමු වී සාකච්ඡා කිරීමටද අවස්‌ථාවක්‌ හිමි විය. මෙයට පෙර ද්‍රවිඩ සංධානයට එවැනි අවස්‌ථාවක්‌ හිමි වූයේ නැත.

ද්‍රවිඩ සංධානය පමණක්‌ නොව ශ්‍රී ලංකා මුස්‌ලිම් කොන්ග්‍රසයද ජාත්‍යන්තර පරීක්‍ෂණය පිළිගෙන ඇත. මේ තත්ත්වය මත ශ්‍රී ලංකාවට දඬුවම් කරන ලෙස ඉල්ලමින් රටින් බැහැර ඊළම් ආණ්‌ඩුව නැමැති සංවිධානය අත්සන් මිලියන 1.4 ක්‌ ඇති සංයුක්‌ත තැටි කීපයක්‌ මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිලයට බාර දී තිබේ.

එහෙත් මෙයට වසර කීපයකට පෙර ජිනීවා මානව හිමිකම් කාර්යාලය ඉදිරියේ සිංහ කොඩි රැගෙන උද්ඝෝෂණ කළ ශ්‍රී ලාංකිකයන් දැන් පෙනෙන්නට නැත. එකී උද්ඝෝෂණවල පසුබිම දැන් අනාවරණය වී ඇත.

ජිනීවා මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිල ශාලාවේදී දකින්නට ලැබුණු සිදුවීම් නම් මේ අතර හිටපු ද්‍රවිඩ සංධාන මන්ත්‍රී සුරේශ් ප්‍රේමචන්ද්‍රන් උතුරු පළාත් සභා මන්ත්‍රී එම්. කේ. සිවාජිලිංගම් පළාත් සභා මන්ත්‍රීනී ආනන්දි සෂිදරන්. තමිල්නාඩුවේ බෙදුම්වාදීන් සහ ඊළම් ඩයස්‌පෝරා නියෝජිතයන් සහ එක්‌සත් ජාතීන්ගේ ආසියා නියෝජිත මෝරි මුන්ගෝ අතර සාකච්ඡාවක්‌ මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිල ශාලාවේදී පැවැත් වූහ.

එහිදී සුරේශ් ප්‍රේමචන්ද්‍රන් මෙලෙස ප්‍රකාශ කර ඇත. උතුරු නැගෙනහිර ජනතාව ද්‍රවිඩ සන්ධානයට ජන බලය ලබාදී ඇත්තේ ජාත්‍යන්තර විමර්ශනයක්‌ සඳහායි. ඇමරිකානු යෝජනාවේ මිශ්‍ර අධිකරණ ක්‍රියාවලිය ඇතුළු ඡේද 6 ක්‌ ඉවත් කර ඇත. උතුරේ ජීවත් වන ජනතාව ලක්‍ෂ එකහමාරක හමුදාවට මැදිහත් වී සිටියි. කොටි සංවිධානයේ අපරාධ පිළිබඳව විමර්ශනයක්‌ පැවැත් විය යුතු බවට නිර්දේශ වී තිබේ. එහෙත් ප්‍රශ්න කරන්නේ කාගෙන්ද? මේ ගැන අපි මෝරි මුන්ගෝ වෙත කරුණු දැක්‌වූයෙමු.

මෙම පසුබිම මැද ඇමරිකානු යෝජනාවේ අහිතකර වගන්ති ගැන ප්‍රතිචාර දැක්‌ වූ ජිනීවා නිත්‍ය නියෝජිත රවිනාත් ආර්යසිංහද දැඩි දුෂ්කරතාවයකට ලක්‌ විය.

ජිනීවා නිත්‍ය නියෝජිතයාගේ ප්‍රතිචාර ගැන ඇමරිකානු හියුමන් රයිට්‌ස්‌ වොච් සංවිධානයේ අධ්‍යක්‍ෂ ජෝන් සීසර් දැඩි විරෝධය පල කළේය.

උතුරු පළාත් සභා මන්ත්‍රීනි ආනන්දි සසිදරන්ද මානව හිමිකම් කවුන්සිල අවන්හලේදී අපට හමු විය.

” මානව හිමිකම් කොමසාරිස්‌ගේ වාර්තාව සහ ඇමරිකානු යෝජනාව තමා මුළුමනින්ම හෙළා දකින බව ඇය පැවසූවාය.

“අපි යුක්‌තිය ඉල්ලා සිටි නමුත් එක්‌සත් ජාතීන් සහ ඇමරිකාව අපට යුක්‌තිය ඉටු කළේ නැත. යෑයි ආනන්දි තවදුරටත් සඳහන් කළාය. අප එක්‌සත් ජාතීන්ගේ සංවිධානය කෙරේ තැබූ සියලු බලාපොරොත්තු බිඳ වැටුණා යෑයි පැවසූ ආනන්දි සසිදරන් මානව හිමිකම් කොමසාරිස්‌ උතුරේ සිදු වූ ජාති ඝාතන ගැන වාර්තාවේ කරුණු දක්‌වා නැතැයි පළ කළාය.

කොටි සංවිධානය අපරාධ සිදු නොකළේ යෑයි ඔබ සිතනවාද යෑයි අපි ඇගෙන් ප්‍රශ්න කළෙමු. කොටි ක්‍රියාකාරීන් අපරාධ සිදු කළේ නම් ඔවුන්ට එරෙහිව නඩු පවරන්න යෑයි ඇය ඊට ප්‍රතිචාරය දක්‌වමින් කීවාය.

by James Blumenthal, Info-Buddhism.com, Oct 8, 2015

Much controversy has been stirred with the establishment of the “new” Nalanda University in Bihar, India. Heavily criticized for neglecting Buddhism, just how much of it has been diverted from the original Nalanda U? Prof James Blumenthal gives a run down on the luminaries that made the original Nalanda one of the greatest learning center in the world.

Oregon, USA — Nalanda Monastic University was the greatest center of Buddhist learning in India’s glorious past. With upwards of 30,000 monks and nuns including 2,000 teachers living, studying and practicing there during its heyday, Nalanda was unmatched.

Thangka image depicting Shakaymuni Buddha and 17 Nalanda Pandits.Image courtesy of the Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

Established during the Gupta Dynasty in the late 5th to early 6th century C.E. under the patronage of the Gupta king Shakraditra, the institution survived for six hundred years, through the Pala Dynasty, until ultimately being destroyed in 1203 by Turkish Muslim invaders. In 1204 the last throne-holder (abbot) of Nalanda, Shakyashribhadra, fled to Tibet. In the intervening centuries, however, many of India’s greatest Buddhist masters trained and taught at Nalanda.

Nalanda’s renown as a center for higher learning spread far. It attracted students from as far away as Greece, Persia, China and Tibet. Although Buddhism was naturally the central focus of study, other subjects including astronomy, medicine (Ayurveda), grammar, metaphysics, logic, philosophy of language, classical Hindu philosophy, non-Indian philosophy and so forth were all regularly studied. Chinese pilgrims who visited Nalanda in the 7th century C.E. give detailed accounts of the physical premises and activities in their travelogues. For example, they describe three nine-story buildings comprising the library that housed millions of titles in hundreds of thousands of volumes on a vast variety of topics!

Much like the large Gelug monasteries of Sera, Drepung and Ganden, living quarters were divided according to regions of the world from which the monks and nuns came. There are clear records of a well-populated Tibet Vihara at Nalanda during the later period. In fact, history reveals that at one point there was a Tibetan gatekeeper at Nalanda. The gatekeepers were traditionally the top scholars/debaters at the institution. Their job was to stand guard” at the gate and defeat in debate any non-Buddhist who proposed to challenge the scholarship and ideas of the institution. If they could not defeat the gatekeeper in debate, they would not be allowed further into the monastery.

The Seventeen Pandits of Nalanda Monastery refers to a grouping of seventeen of the most important and influential Mahayana Buddhist masters from India’s past. His Holiness the Dalai Lama frequently refers to himself as a follower of the lineage of the seventeen Nalanda masters today. He even wrote an exquisite poem in praise of the seventeen.

So who were they? Historically speaking, this particular grouping of Indian masters seems to have become prominent quite recently and to be based on attributions of lam-rim (stages of the path) lineages in Tibet. A likely predecessor to this grouping is an Indian reference to the Six Ornaments of the Southern Continent (i.e., India) and the Two Excellent Ones. These eight form the core of the seventeen.

The Six Ornaments first include Nagarjuna (c. 2nd century C.E.), the revealer of the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras and the systematizer and founder of the Middle Way (Madhyamaka) school of Buddhist philosophy. The most famous treatise of his six texts of reasoning is The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, probably the single most analyzed, commented upon and discussed philosophical treatise in Buddhism’s history.

The second of the six ornaments is Aryadeva (c. 3rd century C.E.) who is sometimes referred to as Nagarjuna’s heart disciple and sometimes simply as his first authoritative commentator. Like Nagarjuna, Aryadeva is universally revered as an authoritative voice for all subsequent Middle Way commentators and is most well known for his treatise The Four Hundred Stanzas.

Aryadeva was born as the son of a Sinhalese king and is considered the co- founder of Mahayana philosophy

In addition to the two Middle Way school masters, included among the six ornaments are the two earliest masters from the Mind-Only school (Yogachara/Chittamatra): Asanga (300–390 C.E.), the founder, and his disciple and half-brother, Vasubandhu (c. 4th century C.E.) one of the system’s earliest and most authoritative commentators. In addition to his own treatises, Asanga is also famous, according to tradition, for retrieving the five Maitreya Buddha texts¹ directly from Maitreya in his pure land, Tushita. With regards to Vasubandhu, before becoming a leading exponent of the Mind-Only school, he wrote a famous treatise from the perspective of the Great Exposition school (Vaibhashika) entitled The Treasure of Knowledge (Abhidharmakosha) which is utilized extensively in Tibetan scholastic studies. Traditionally, seven years is dedicated to the study of this text in the Gelug geshe curriculum.

Two additional Mind-Only school proponents round out the six ornaments: Dignaga (6th century C.E.) andDharmakirti (600–660 C.E.). The two are most famous as the groundbreakers in Buddhist logic and epistemology. Specifically, they wrote philosophical treatises on the contents and means of accruing valid knowledge. They argued that from the Buddhist perspective there were two sources of valid knowledge: logical inference and direct perception. Much of their writings were detailed elaborations on these topics.

The Two Excellent Ones refers to the two great Vinaya masters: Gunaprabha (c. 9th century C.E.) andShakyaprabha. Gunaprabha was a disciple of Vasubandhu’s and is most famous for his treatise, the Vinayasutra. Shakyaprabha was a disciple of Shantarakshita’s (also among the seventeen) and the other major teacher of vinaya among the seventeen. He is particularly associated Mulasarvastivada-vinaya line which has been followed in Tibet since the time of the early Dharma King, Ralpachen (born c. 806 C.E.). His teacher Shantarakshita began this ordination lineage in Tibet when he ordained the first seven Tibetan monks and founded Samye Monastery.

Beyond the Six Ornaments and Two Excellent Ones, are nine additional Indian Buddhist masters, each of whom profoundly impacted the shapes of Indian and/or Tibetan Buddhism for centuries.

Buddhapalita (470–550 C.E.) was one of the great commentators on Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka thought. He is the earliest Indian Madhyamika specifically identified as a proponent of the sub-school of Madhyamaka known in Tibet as the Middle Way Consequence school (Prasangika-Madhyamaka). He received this designation in Tibet due to his use of a form of reasoning that drew out the absurd logical consequences of the philosophical rivals of Madhyamikas when he commented on Nagarjuna’s root text on wisdom.

Buddhapalita was subsequently criticized by another Madhyamaka master, Bhavaviveka (500–578 C.E.). He argued that a proper Madhyamaka commentator ought to do more than show the absurdities of other’s views; they also have a responsibility to establish the view of emptiness and to do so with autonomous inferences (svatantranumana). He subsequently became known in Tibet as the founder” and primary proponent of a sub-school of Madhyamaka known as the Middle Way Autonomy school (Svatantrika-Madhyamaka).

Chandrakirti (600–650 C.E.) is revered by many in Tibet as the founder of the Middle Way Consequence school, often regarded as the highest Buddhist philosophical explanation of reality. He famously came to the defense of Buddhapslita’s use of consequentialist reasoning contra Bhavaviveka’s criticism. In a line of thinking further developed by Je Tsongkhapa (1357–1419 CE) they argued that a Madhyamaka philosopher ought not to utilize autonomous inferences because the very use of that sort of reasoning entailed the acceptance of an inherent nature in the subject of the argument. Since the existence of an inherent nature in anything was precisely what Nagarjuna was refuting, the use of autonomous inference seemed like a fatal flaw for a Madhyamaka. Though historical evidence suggests that Chandrakirti’s views likely did not have extensive support in India until the late period there, by the 13th century in Tibet, his views on a proper understanding of Madhyamaka began to dominate the philosophical landscape and continue to today.

Shantarakshita (725–788 C.E.) was a towering figure in late Indian Buddhist philosophy and also immensely influential in Tibet. Philosophically, he is famous for integrating the three major lines of Mahayana philosophy into an integrated coherent system. These were the Madhyamaka, the Yogachara and the logico-epistemological thought of Dharmakirti. Beyond India, he spent the last seventeen years of his life in Tibet, ordaining its first monks and serving as abbot of it first monastery. Moreover, probably nobody has exerted a greater influence on Tibetan Buddhism in terms of the way in which Tibetans approach philosophy. Shantarakshita virtually taught Tibetans how to do philosophy during the early dissemination of the Dharma there.

Two of Shantarakshita’s disciples (in addition to Shakyabhadra mentioned above) are also included in the list of seventeen. Kamalashila (c. 8th century C.E.) likewise was an immensely important figure in India and Tibet. Like his teacher, Kamalashila wrote extensively on Madhyamaka and pramana (logic and epistemology) as well as on meditation theory and practice.

His three Stages of Meditation (Bhavanakrama) texts are among the most cited in traditional Tibet expositions on the topics. Moreover, also like his teacher, he spent extensive time in Tibet during the early dissemination. He famously and successfully defended the Indian gradual approach to enlightenment at the Great Debate at Samye (also called the Council of Lhasa) against the instantaneous approach advocated by Hvashang Mohoyen, the Chinese master. Tibetan histories often recount that since that time Tibetan have followed the Indian method. Haribhadra (700–770 C.E.), the last of Shantarakshita’s disciples included in the group of seventeen, wrote the most famous and commonly utilized of the 21 Indian commentaries on The Ornament of Clear Realizations by Maitreya and the Mahayana path system in general. The other major commentator on The Ornament of Clear Realizations to be included among the seventeen is Vimuktisena (c. 6th century C.E.) whose text Illuminating the Twenty Thousand: A Commentary on the Ornament is likewise extensively cited by subsequent Tibetan authors.

Shantideva (c. 8th century C.E.) composed what is perhaps the most important and influential classic on how to practice in the Mahayana tradition: A Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life (Bodhisattvacaryavatara) while a monk at Nalanda. His text on the development of bodhichitta and the practice of the six perfections is revered and studied extensively by all Tibetan traditions. His Holiness the Dalai Lama often refers to his favorite passage in Buddhist literature as coming from the dedication section of this text: As long as space endures, as long as sentient being remain, may I too remain, to dispel the miseries of the world.”

The final master included among the seventeen was the Bengali scholar-adept Atisha (980–1054 C.E.), who was a critical figure in the later dissemination of Buddhism in Tibet. Like many of the others on this list, Atisha’s impact on the shape of Tibetan Buddhism was immense. His classic, The Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment (Bodhipathpradipa) is widely regarded as the root text on the graduated stages of the path presentation found in Tibetan classics like Je Tsongkhapa’s The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment (also commonly referred to by the abbreviated Tibetan name, Lamrim Chenmo), Gampopa’s Jeweled Ornament of Liberation and Patrul Rinpoche’s The Words of My Perfect Teacher among others. In addition to the stages of the path teachings, Atisha also introduced the lojong, or mind training, tradition of Mahayana practice in Tibet. Lojong teachings are quintessential Mahayana teachings in that their aim is to eliminate both the self-cherishing attitude and self-grasping by teaching means to cultivate the altruistic compassion of bodhichitta and the direct realization of emptiness. Like the stages of the path teachings, the mind training tradition is one that is embraced by all Tibetan lineages.

Together the seventeen great masters of Nalanda monastery represent the real high points of Indian Mahayana. The inspiration and teachings of these great masters continue to bless practitioners of the Mahayana to the present day.

Notes
———
¹ The five Maitreya texts are: The Ornament of Clear Realization (Abhisamayalamkara), The Ornament of Mahayana Sutras (Mahayanasutralamkara), Distinguishing the Middle from the Extremes (Madhyantavibhaga), Distinguishing Phenomena and the Nature of Phenomena (Dharma-dharmata-vibhaga), and The Sublime Continuum (Uttaratantra).

http://buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=70,12493,0,0,1,0#.VhaCC_mqqko

——————————————-
JAMES BLUMENTHAL, Ph.D. is an associate professor of Buddhist philosophy at Oregon State University and professor of Buddhist Studies at Maitripa College. He is the author of The Ornament of The Middle Way: A Study of the Madhyamaka Thought of Shantarakshita along with more than 40 articles in scholarly journals and popular periodicals on various aspects of Buddhist thought and practice. He recently finished work with Geshe Lhundup Sopa on Steps on the Path: Vol. IV,  a commentary on the ‘ Shamatha’ chapter of Lamrim Chanmo of Tsongkhapa which is due for publication in the fall.

See also

Aryadeva was born as the son of a Sinhalese king and is considered the co- founder of Mahayana philosophy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryadeva

http://www.theosophytrust.mobi/231-aryadeva#.VhaIyPmqqko

Why Buddhism must be at the forefront of Nalanda University

http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=8,11559,0,0,1,0

Nalanda University and the suppressed Buddhist identity

http://vijayvaani.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?aid=3697

The Nalanda enterprise rose from a fundamentally false premise

http://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/the-nalanda-enterprise-rose-from-a-fundamentally-false-premise/article1-1383416.aspx

Sri Lanka’s role in the spread of Buddhism in South East Asia

http://www.sundaytimes.lk/100620/Plus/plus_16.html

By Ruwan M Jayatunge M.D. and Laurent Karila, MD, PhD Paul Brousse University Hospital, Villejuif, France

Problematic sexual behaviors have been identified for centuries and Nymphomania has become a controversial subject among the clinicians. Nymphomania is considered as an organic disease, psychological disorder and a legal construct (Groneman, 2001).

The term nymphomania resonates with a sense of the insatiable sexuality of women, devouring, depraved, and diseased. It conjures up an aggressively sexual female who both terrifies and titillates men (Groneman, 1994).

In general notion nymphomania is defined as a neurotic condition in women in which the symptoms are a compulsion to have sexual intercourse with as many men as possible and an inability to have lasting relationships with them. Hypersexuality in males sometimes known as Don-Juanism (Shainess, 1972).

Nymphomania is a compulsive sexual behaviours which include conventional behaviours that are taken to such obsessive extremes that they interfere with everyday life. Nymphomania shows a symptom-profile similar to the current notion of ‘sexual addiction’ (Goodman, 1998; Berrios&Rivière, 2006). Since  the  appearance  of  sexual  addiction  in  the clinical literature, various  terms have been used to name the  condition,  including  nymphomania,  Don  Juanism,  satyriasis , sexual compulsivity,  sexual  impulsivity ,  out-of-control  sexual  behavior , sexual  addiction,  and  hypersexual  behaviour  (Karila et al., 2014).

The term nymphomania was inspired by Greek mythology: nymphs are minor deities represented as beautiful maidens. The nymph was a female character who could either resist male desire, or could be sexually promiscuous herself, to the point of aggression (Cohen, 2014).

Hippocrates (460 BC) wrote uncontrolled sexual behaviours in young girls (under the term of melancholy madness) and recommended marriage as the cure (King, 1998).  For centuries it was named as madness from the womb. In some cultures clitoridectomy was performed as a treatment measure. According to Brooten (1996) clitoridectomy was the suggested remedy for women with an overly large clitoris or masculine desires”. This concept of masculine desires” in women may also have included the act of being sexually aggressive” towards men. Furthermore as conservative management hemp seed emulsion was used to treat furor uterinus or nymphomania (Russo, 2002).

The treatment of nymphomaniawas discussed in the Aurvedic Medicine (Rao, 2003).The origin of Ayurveda is attributed to Atharva Veda where mention is made several diseases with their treatments. Later, from the 6^th Century BC to 7^th Century AD (Narayanaswamy, 1981).The Ayurvedic medicine recommended herbal treatmentfor impulse-control disorders such as   hypersexuality (Jansen et al., 2014).

Health care in Ancient Sri Lanka would go back about 5000 years (De Silva, 2015). The ancient Sri Lankan physicians identified extreme sexual behaviour in women and named it as Kinnara Umathuwa or Narikaunmadaya. For the affected subjects healing rituals were performed. These ritualsconstitute behavioral treatments (Bartlett, 1989).

The Buddhist Jātaka stories that were compiled from the 3rd Century B.C. to the 5th Century A.D. narrates about a princess named Krishna (in Maha Kunala Jātakaya) who had suggestive features of Nymphomania or sexual addiction (Jayatunge, 2015).

History recounts several infamous women with extraordinary sexual libido. The Empress Messalina (born in around 20 AD) who was the third wife of the emperor Claudius had an enormous sexual disinhibition. To quench her sexual thrust Messalina incognito used to go to brothels frequently.

The queen Anuladevi of Sri Lanka reigned from 47 BC –to 42 BC and became famous for her promiscuous behavior. She poisoned her husband the King Chora- Naga and came in to power. Anuladevi became the first queen in Sri Lankan history who had meaningful power and authority.

According to the historical reports Anuladevi had sexual sensation seeking behaviour. She was fond of men and had a number of affairs with the commoners. Ironically she used to poison her lovers after her erotic desires had been satisfied. She had extreme desire for sex and power.

As described in the Mahavamsa – the Great Chronicle of Sri Lanka in her last four months in power Queen Anuladevi had sexual relationships with 30 young men. Finally as a result of a coup she lost her power and her opponents set fire to her palace. The queen Anuladevi was burnt alive.

The Italian physician Girolamo Mercuriale(1530- 1606) believed that  immoderate burning in the genital area of the female, caused by the surging of hot vapour, bringing about an erection of the clitoris and causing hyper sexuality in them (Jung,  ‎2011).

In 1769 a Scottish medical book published the term ‘nymphomania and the French physician de Bienville, used this term in the medical context in 1771. From the 1880s to the 1930s,   nymphomania began to be transformed from an organic illness with both mental and physical symptoms to a mental disorder caused by psychological factors (Groneman, 1995).

Freud believed the unconscious was filled with sexual and erotic desire and the true cause of nymphomania was women’s failure to have vaginal rather than clitoral orgasms. According to Freudian theory, nymphomania grew out of a psychological condition he called frigidity, in which affected, or sexually immature, women were unable to achieve orgasm during sexual intercourse.As a result of their inability to be sexually satisfied, these women sought frequent sexual encounters as a means of gratifying their sexual needs (Cavendish, 2010).

The German sexologist Richard Freiherr von Krafft–Ebingdescribed several cases of extreme sexual behaviours in women which he called insatiable succession of sexual enjoyments”In one of the cases Krafft–Ebing decribes a woman diagnosed with Nymphomania and her  incestuous desire for her own son.

The American Psychologist Albert Ellis became one of the founders of the American sexual revolution. His early work focused on nymphomania and he described a several cases of oversexed women.

The word ‘nymphomania’, the concept of ‘madness from the womb’ and the belief in the existence of a behaviour consisting in an abnormally high female sexual drive converged during the second half of the seventeenth century to give rise to a new clinical category which, with minor changes, has survived until the present (e.g., in ICD-10) (Berrios &Rivière ,2006). Nymphomania was listed as a “sexual deviation” in the first DSM (Diagnosticand Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) published in 1951.

The International Classification of Diseases or ICD-10, includes “Excessive sexual drive” as a diagnosis (code F52.7), subdividing it into satyriasis (for males) and nymphomania (for females). However Hypersexual Disorder was proposed as a new psychiatric disorder for consideration in the Sexual Disorders section for DSM-V.  But it failed and the highly relevant clinical concept ‘hypersexuality’ has still not been incorporated as a separate category (Goethals &Cosyns, 2014).

Nymphomania is a form of Compulsive sexual behavior. Compulsive sexual behavior (CSB) is a disorder featuring repetitive, intrusive and distressing sexual thoughts, urges and behaviors that negatively affect many aspects of an individual’s life (Derbyshire & Grant  2015). Nymphomania can co-occurr with psychiatric disorders and traumatic experiences.

There is a stark contrast between the widespread myth of nymphomania and women who actually experience disruptive increases in sexual desire. Nymphomania can be defined in terms of three distinct elements: marked increase in sexual drive; extremely frequent partner sexual behavior; promiscuity (Levine, 1982).

Some describe of female compulsive sexual behavior in association with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Mulligan et al (2002) provide several case studies of female compulsive sexual behavior in association with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Some researchers believe that compulsive sexual behavior is a coping strategy to deal with serious stress or anxiety.

There are strong counter-arguments against the diagnostic entity –nymphomania.   Sexual desire is the subjective experience of being interested in sexual objects or activities or wishing to engage in sexual activities (Regan &Berscheid, 1999; Peplau, 2003). Therefore some Feminists argue that the diagnosis nemphomania” has been used as a   cultural suppression of female sexuality.

According to Groneman (1994) the medical diagnosis of nymphomania in the nineteenth century, constructed within a social and cultural context as well as within a scientific one, reflected and reproduced prevailing attitudes about appropriate behavior. Physicians, however, did not speak with a single voice: they did not agree on the nature of the disease, its extent, its treatment, or even what constituted normal female sexuality.Futhermore some feminists have argued that  diagnosesuch as nymphomania has served to enforce conformity to norms of female domesticity, subordination, and subservience to men’s sexual needs; at times diagnoses have reaffirmed class distinctions as well” (Marecek, 1993, )As indicated by Eriksen and  Kress (2005) feminist theorists believe that women’s anger, depression, and discontent have been reframed as medical or psychiatric symptoms, and that, as a result, the often difficult and distressing life circumstances of women have been disregarded.

References

Bartlett ,A. (1989).Behavioural perspectives on a Sri Lankan healing ritual. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 35(3):245-51.

Berrios, G.E., Rivière, L.(2006).’Madness from the womb’.Hist Psychiatry.  17(66 Pt 2):223-35.

Brooten, B. J. (1996) Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Cavendish, M. (2010). Sex and Society: Generations.Cavendish Square Publishing.

Derbyshire, K.L., Grant, J.E.(2015).Compulsive sexual behavior: a review of the literature.JBehav Addict.  ;4(2):37-43.

De Silva. N, (2015). Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions of South Asia, 40-56.

Eriksen, K., & Kress, V. E. (2005). Beyond the DSM story: Ethical quandaries, challenges, and best practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Geiger, W. (1996). Mahavamsa: Great Chronicle of Ceylon.Asian Educational Services.

Goethals, K, Cosyns P.(2014).[Sexual disorders in the DSM-5].TijdschrPsychiatr.  ; 56(3):196-200.

Groneman, C. (1994). ‘Nymphomania: The historical construction of female sexuality’ in Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 19 (2).   343, 346.

Groneman, C. (1995).Nymphomania and the Freudians. Psychohist Rev.  ;23(2):125-42.

Groneman, C. (2001).Nymphomania: A History.WW Norton.

Jansen RL, Brogan B, Whitworth AJ, Okello EJ.(2014).Effects of five Ayurvedic herbs on locomotor behaviour in a Drosophila melanogaster Parkinson’s disease model. Phytother Res. 2014 Dec;28(12):1789-95.

Jayatunge, R.M. (2015). Psychological Aspects of Buddhist Jathaka Stories. Godage Publishers Colombo.

Jung , S. ( ‎2011). Restless in Thought, Disturb’d in Mind” An Exploration of the Cultural Poetics of Madness in Hamlet and Ophelia from Shakespeare to Coleridge.Retrived from http://lib.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/001/786/339/RUG01-001786339_2012_0001_AC.pdf

Kafka, M.P. (2010).Hypersexual disorder: a proposed diagnosis for DSM-V.Arch Sex Behav. ;39(2):377-400.

Karila L, Wéry A, Weinstein A, Cottencin O, Petit A, Reynaud M, Billieux J.(2014).Sexual addiction or hypersexual disorder: different terms for the same problem? A review of the literature. Curr Pharm Des. ;20(25):4012-20.

King, H. (1998). Hippocrates’ Woman: Reading the Female Body in Ancient Greece.Routledge.

Levine, S.B.(1982).A modern perspective on nymphomania. J Sex Marital Ther. ;8(4):316-24.

Mulligan, A., Webb, M., Gill, M. (2002). A variant of nymphomania in association with obsessive-compulsive disorder: Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine Vol 19(3) Sep 2002, 96-98.

Narayanaswamy, V.(1981) Origin anddevelopment of ayurveda (a brief history). Anc. Sci. Life, 1 (1), 1–7.

Peplau, L. A. (2003). Human sexuality: How do men and women differ? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(2), 37-40.

Rao,A.V.(2003). Ayurvedic Treatment For Common Diseases.Diamond Pocket Books

Regan, P.C., Berscheid, E. (1999). Lust: What we know about human sexual desire. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Russo, E. 2002.Cannabis treatments in obstetrics and gynecology: A historical review.JCannabis Therapeutics 2(3–4):5–35.

Samenow, C.P. (2010). Classifying Problematic Sexual Behaviors—It’s All in the Name. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 17:3–6.

Shainess N.(1972).Nymphomania and Don Juanism.Med Trial Tech Q.  ;19(1):1-6.

Shenali D Waduge

Regime change implies installing boot lickers agreeable and willing to turni Sri Lanka into a virtual Philippines en route to South Korea with the change of the Sri Lankan Constitution earmarked to remove the prominent place given to the Sinhala Buddhists who built Sri Lanka. Denationalizing the people and creating virtual slaves of the West is what will be orchestrated through education and other social media through the NGOs who will have a prominent place. The colonial mission has become more or less complete. The question is do we need to have a de facto government with puppet local leaders when all administration, policies and decisions are being drafted and sent from the department of Suddas abroad? Why not the US, UK and EU name the viceroy to function as the de jure head of puppet-state Sri Lanka so that the public can directly go to this Viceroy for complaints and answers. It saves everyone a lot of time! Without doing things from the back let the suddas come out in the open!

We the public do not wish to now waste our time going to the local kalu suddas knowing that he/she will end up firing a call or sending an email to foreign missions to ask them the response they should give to us. Its too time consuming for us the public, so instead the fellow citizens of Sri Lanka have no other option but to bow our heads down to returning to colonial rule because obviously the local leaders whom we thought would defend the nation and the armed forces are far more interested in defending themselves and their lifestyles. If that is the case, so be it and since the sudda’s are now promising to deliver accountability, transparency and all the love dovey words they can think of we would like them to

• Take action against the corruption of politicians
• Take action against the law breakers in the corporate sector
• Take action against those that violate the rule of law
• Take action against the suddas themselves who do not practice what they preach.
• Take action against the real terrorists – LTTE & LTTE Diaspora who funded the LTTE
• Take action against India for starting armed militancy

If the West is promising rule of law we need to see it practiced by those claiming to be the representatives of the suddas. If that is not happening it is best that the sudda’s themselves take over and show us by practicing what they preach. However, if it is likely to be like the Kunduz bombing in Afghanistan by the US now changing version every hour or the $1.3m bribe taken by the ex-UN General Assembly President and the illegalities taking place in the UN manipulating the immunities with impunity makes us wonder whether there is no difference in jumping from the frying pan to the fire as both are the same!

We the people of Sri Lanka will get what we deserve!!!

 Shenali D Waduge

Dilrook Kannangara

Twelve countries finally signed the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement headed by USA. Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Mexico, Canada and Australia are other noteworthy members. They will be almost totally reducing tariffs on key traded items.

The biggest winners of TPP are Vietnam and Malaysia. The biggest losers are Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Cambodia and China. Sri Lanka’s share of US apparel imports is expected to fall by 0.2% from 1% to 0.8%. Although they look small in terms of US trade, it is a drop of 20% (1% to 0.8%). With more than 22% Sri Lanka’s exports going to USA which is the island nation’s largest export destination, a 20% drop will be devastating. It will be about $350 million or 0.5% of the GDP.

It will not be like NAFTA which ruined many garment factories in the mid 1990s but eventually stabilised as Sri Lanka had a still lower cost of production. Surviving TPP will be nearly impossible unless Sri Lanka too joins the TPP.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/28/winners-and-losers-in-the-worlds-biggest-trade-deal.html

This will worsen Sri Lanka’s already precarious debt situation and balance of payment crisis.

R. Chandrasoma  Courtesy Island

We are told by high authorities in the government that our former President has good hopes of being alive in the years ahead because of the political heroism and encompassing compassion of those who defeated him at the recent historic elections.

Indeed, the claim has been made by no less a person than the globe-trotting (and oracular) Foreign Minister that the former Leader (MR) escaped an inglorious end strapped to an ‘Electric Chair’ because of the pleading and promises of the New Leadership – to purge our ancient land of the political roguery and rampant venality that (supposedly) characterized the ruler-ship of the defeated President.

There was also a more ominous charge –that was music in the ears of the Anglo-American ‘mafia’ that currently polices the world. MR was supposedly in the same class as the ‘villainous’ Saddam Hussein and the much-feared Gaddafi – both heavily advertised in the Western Press as brutal dictators that brought not only ruin to their own countries but imperiled the world because of their insatiable greed to be great and powerful whatever the material and human cost. Indeed. so great was their advertised political depravity that the entire world was alarmed and affronted. The hilarious comparison with MR was a staged political stunt – he had, of course, no weapons of mass destruction nor was he outside the Democratic Process and the Rule of Law that dictators are supposed to enjoy. He defeated a historic enemy and re-launched Sri Lanka as a free and prosperous nation. It is here that

Orwellian Revision is famously employed – the artful suppression of the facts about a disastrous rebellion by a bloody tyrant and murderer of thousands of innocents.

The heroic feat that saved Lanka from political extinction was ‘rewritten’ as an assult on the ‘rights of the people’ and the word ‘genocide’ gained importance to the enemies of a stable and prosperous Sri Lanka.

The New Leadership –the Avenging Horsemen of the Apocalypse – carried this Orwellian rewriting of history much further when what was largely a political campaign against MR ‘morphed’ into a moral crusade against an Evil Dictator and his Band of Thieves. A hallucinatory landscape was created where men were (supposedly) kidnapped in broad daylight, women raped and children molested. It was a time – so declared the enemies of MR – of robbing and fobbing when free citizens lived perilously with White Vans patrolling the streets to pick unruly malcontents.

This is the Great Orwellian Redaction that the Propaganda Arm of the New Liberation Movement used with great success. Let honest citizens compare the ‘then’ with the ‘now’ –the brief age of triumph and confidence under MR with the abnegatory bathos of a life under defeatism and humiliating contrition-fashioned as a Machiavellian strategy to further the political ends of those threatened with early extinction in the battle for power.

A final comment on the Electric Chair. The British seized the Last King of Sri Lanka on protests made by the Ruling Elite that he was unfit to be a King. It was a historic betrayal. The surrender of our one-time President to gloating foreigners by those briefly ensconced in power – if and when this happens –will surely rank with the earlier historic shame.

සමීර S. ගජධීර ජපානයේ ටෝකියෝ නුවර සිට – lanka C news

The News Repot says “Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe who is on a five-day official visit to Japan, delivered a Special Memorial Speech to the parliamentarians of the Japanese National Diet today.
Previously, only two state leaders have been given the opportunity to address the Japanese Parliament. They are Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Barak Obama.Meanwhile, the Government Information Department said Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will host a dinner for the Sri Lankan Prime Minister. Prime Minister Wickremesinghe will also sign several bilateral agreements with Japan”.

But the truth;

The fact that a 3-star Russian general gave his US counterparts in Syria just an hour’s notice to move American aircrafts out so that Russia can launch air strikes, undoubtedly, is the most significant watershed moment in the post-Soviet, geo-political landscape.

In fact, the alarming development was a bolt from the blue as far as the Western alliances, both at political and military level, are concerned. At stake, among many things, is the invincibility of the alliances that often went unchallenged, following the Second World War.

Having been caught off-guard, the West can only breathe a sigh of relief from a certain sections of the media, the usual suspects, which started highlighting the civilian casualties, dropping bombs at wrong targets and of course, consequences of the war – both for Russia and the wider world.

The West has been pushed against the wall by Russia by stubbornly refusing to make a distinction between the Islamic State – Isis – and other militants. To make matters worse, Russian’s targets on the very first day were the hideouts of the latter, indeed. The aerial attacks, however, were conducted across most parts of Syria since then, fairly reflecting Russia’s military objective.

Judging by the number of multiple explosions and the extent of the spread of debris in the aerial footages published by the Russian defence ministry, most attacks, if not all, seem to be accurate. No aerial campaign, however, has ever been carried out without inflicting collateral damage and the Russian won’t be able to break that trend despite the extensive use of SUKOI SU-34, the state-of-the-art aircraft, which can attack under both favourable and adverse conditions, both naval and ground targets.

The West made a disastrous mistake with the notion that it could win a well-funded, intensely-determined guerrilla organisation like Isis that thrives on religious ideology, by a campaign of air attacks, coupled with occasional lucky hits with drones, while ruling out the involvement of ground troops – for obvious reasons.

When the politicians, with the aid of certain media organizations, overplayed this strategy, most of the general public in the West saw through the futility of these missions. As a consequence, they didn’t buy the arguments that they heard for waging these wars, even if the culprits in question were ruthless despots. In the wake of recent migrant crises, the public wanted someone who really could deal with the issues – and at the source.

In this context, it is understandable why Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, enjoy a significant support among the general public in the West, as someone who is prepared to take the bull by the horns. The admiration of Mr Putin, both by Donald Trump in the US and Nigel Farage in the UK, meanwhile, has already become a catalyst for pro-Putin sentiments in the West.

Although, the right-wing media keeps attacking Russia against its Syrian campaign, the columnists find it increasingly difficult to find loyal supporters among their respective audiences, according to the responses that they get in the form of comments; a strong pro-Russian trend could be seen among comments, perhaps, much to the annoyance of the media organizations in question.

In the wake of the rise of Isis, the Western public saw a power vacuum in the Middle East and the involvement of Russia at the eleventh hour, has become the only glimmer of hope in a region, distinctly polarized along the Sunni-Shiat’e fault line.

Since the Sunni camp, led by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and Turkey are already up in arms against the Russian attacks there is a possibility of military objectives being eclipsed by geo-political sandstorms.

Since Mr Putin is not known for finishing a job halfway through, especially after his Chechnya campaign against a formidable uprising, which almost brought the Russian Federation to its knees during Yeltsin era, there is a potential danger of getting the Syrian conflict out of hand.

In addition, if Iran and Hezbollah got involved in the conflict by assisting President Assad in ground warfare, it would leave Israel rattled to its core with the anxieties over inevitable consequences. President Putin allayed the fears of Benjamin Netanyahu before Russia’s offensive by saying that Syrian state was not in a position to open a second front.

With Shia dominated countries in the Middle East firmly behind Russia in the latest military campaign, political observers are watching the evolving loyalty of Iraq, which is currently at the mercy of Isis.
If Russia managed to deal with the militants against President Assad in Syria, it would certainly transform the nation to a force to reckon with. So, Iraqi government may be tempted to ask the Russians to extend the campaign over its air space too – as a last resort to eliminate Isis.

If it happens, the political landscape will be transformed overnight beyond recognition with the epicentre of Sunni Muslims, Saudi Arabia, bearing the brunt of dreadful consequences. With rapidly falling oil revenue and a range of potential problems on economic front, such a scenario cannot come about at a worse time as far as the custodian of the two holiest mosques is concerned.

– Asian Tribune –

By Dasun Edirisinghe Courtesy Island

Students from outstation schools have obtained highest marks at the Grade 5 Scholarship examination, according to results released by the Examinations Department yesterday.

Kavinda Unantenna of Gangasiripura Vidyalaya in Gampola, Kavishka Wanigasekera of Makura Kanishta Vidyalaya in Malmaduwa and Melani Wijesinghe of Sri Sumangala Kanishta Vidyalaya in Ussapitiya, Mawanella have scored the highest marks at the 2015 Grade 5 scholarship examination. The three students have obtained 196 each out of 200 marks.

Commissioner General of Examinations W. M. N. J. Pushpakumara said that five students had scored identical marks (195) for the second place. They are Oshani Hashinika Gayashani of Udubaddawa Dammananda Maha Vidyalaya, Tharindya Kauri Perera of Hiripitiya Primary School in Veyangoda, Nigara Maduhansa of Kelaniya Janadhipathi Vidyalaya in Mahara, Kadawatha, Wishwa Pathiraja of Pahathgama

Roman Catholic Junior School in Hanwella and Dulap Nethul Wijesekera of Udupila Primary School in Delgoda.

Savindu Aman of Siri Dhamma Vidyalaya in Labuduwa, Akmeemana, Gamindu Sasmitha of P. De S. Kularatne Kanishta Vidyalaya in Peniyana, Ambalangoda and Sanjan Abeydheera of Tangalle Model School had been placed third with 194 marks, he said.

Results are available on the Examination Department website www.doenets.lk or results.exams.gov.lk. Students also could obtain results by sending text message by typing exam<space>GV15<space>index number to 1919. The exam results had also been posted to respective schools yesterday, Pushpakumara said.

The Examination Chief said that about 333,671 students had sat the examination held on August 23.

He said the pass mark for the Colombo, Gampaha, Kalutara, Kandy, Matale, Kurunegala, Galle, Matara and Kegalle districts was160, for the Ratnapura and Hambantota Districts 158 and for the Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa Districts 156.

The pass marks for other districts are: 155 for Mullaitivu, Ampara, Puttalam, Badulla and Moneragala Districts; 153 for Trincomalee, Nuwara Eliya and Vavuniya Districts.

In the Tamil medium the pass mark of 154 is for Colombo, Gampaha, Kalutara, Kandy, Matale, Kurunegala, Galle, Matara and Kegalle districts. The second highest pass mark for Tamil medium is 153 for Jaffna, Vavuniya, Batticaloa and Badulla Districts and 152 for Kilinochchi, Mannar, Ampara, Mullaitivu, Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa and Ratnapura Districts.

The pass marks for other districts in the Tamil medium are: 151 for Nuwara Eliya Trincomalee, Puttalam, and Moneragala Districts, 150 for Hambantota District.

Pushpakumara said applications for re-correction could be submitted through school heads before Oct. 23.

Thoughts” – by Michael Roberts

By Our Correspondent

Guwahati: Journalists’ Forum Assam (JFA) has condemned the killing of one more scribe in Uttar Pradesh and reiterated its demand for a national action plan for justice to those slain journalists. The murder of Hemant Yadav last week increased the tally of slaughtered media persons to four this year in India.

Yadav, a middle aged journalist who worked for Hindi news channel TV 24, was shot dead by two motorcycle-borne miscreants on the night of 3 October 2015. The incident took place at Dheena area of Chandauli district, where Yadav faced the brutal attack. Although he was taken to a nearby hospital, Yadav succumbed to his injuries. Yadav has left behind his wife and two children.

The last incident of killing of a journalist was reported from Maharashtra, when a Thane based journalist Raghavendra Dube was killed by some miscreants. Dube, who edited a local news weekly was beaten and stabbed to death on July 17. Dube’s killing took place after he had covered a police raid on a night bar. Earlier this year, two journalists, Jagendra Singh from UP and Sandeep Kothari from Madhya Pradesh were also killed in separate incidents by miscreants.

Condemnation also came from International Federation of Journalists

(IFJ) which has  demanded immediate action to bring those responsible into custody. The he IFJ general secretary Beth Costa  asserted that despite being the world’s largest democracy, the freedom of the press currently does not guarantee journalist safety.

The JFA, while demanding visible actions by the Akhilesh Yadav government at Lucknow, expressed dismay that the present scenario, where the murderers of media persons often escape accountabilities, would only encourage the perpetrators to continue their killing spree against the courageous journalists of the country.

We reiterate our demand for a national action plan to safeguard the scribes who pursue critical journalism,” said a statement issued by JFA president Rupam Barua and secretary Nava Thakuria adding that the robust Indian media fraternity must rise on the occasion to compel the authority to punish every single murderer of journalists under the rule of law.

Courtesy Times of India

BHOPAL: Next year on Independence Day, India will have the world’s largest 750MW solar power plant in Rewa district of Madhya Pradesh, which will pip America’s much-vaunted 550-megawatt Desert Sunlight solar project in California, commissioned four days ago.

Acquisition of 1,500 hectares of land for the Rs 4000 crore project is close to completion and government agencies are likely to invite tenders from developers by April. The state government is setting up the plant in a joint venture with Solar Energy Corporation of India.

The expected cost of power production is pegged at Rs 5 per/unit which would be lower than production costs in any solar project in the country, including the one at Neemuch in MP and Mehsana and Patan in Gujarat.

READ ALSO: Gujarat may lose top spot in solar power generation

Speaking to TOI, additional chief secretary for new and renewable energy, SR Mohanty, said, “We are planning to inaugurate the plant on August 15, 2016. The plant will be developed in three segments of 250 MW each. Land acquisition will be over by end of month and over 90% land for the project is owned by government,” he said.

Acquisition for remaining 300 hectares of non-government land is continuing. “There are no hiccups as the land is non-agricultural and barren,” said Rewa district collector, Rahul Jain.

Speaking to TOI, Mohanty said, “No clearance from pollution control board is required for the project. We have to sign a joint venture agreement between state-run PSU Urja Vikas Nigam and Solar Energy Corporation of India and a detailed project report will be prepared. Preliminary reports are already prepared and we will complete formalities by April and we will be in a position to invite tenders.”

READ ALSO: Panchayats to have stake in solar power projects

Work on laying transmission lines is under way.

“State government will help developers get the project financed with easy loans and little paperwork. World Bank has given its nod to fund 49% of the cost at concessional rates. Developers who quote the lowest power tariff will bag the project,” said Mohanty. And at least 20% power produced from the solar plant will be for Madhya Pradesh, he said.

The plant is being set up in Gurh tehsil of Rewa district and will straddle five villages of Barseta.