August 15 is the day Japan commemorates the war’s end. Soon it will be 70 years after that day in 1945 when two Atomic Bombs dropped from American planes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki forced Japan to surrender. Japan lost to foes enjoying overwhelming superiority in both numbers and material. Nevertheless Japan’s entry to war in 1941 was not without significant consequences for the rest of Asia. It had redeeming features. Within a few years of Japan’s surrender in 1945 a host of leading Asian countries achieved independence from western colonial domination after centuries of abject rule. Japan’s legacy is that the people in Asia are now free.
The purpose of this article is to re – visit the subject and re- examine it from the point of view of the de-colonized and pose the unthinkable and once unimaginable question, Are we in Asia and particularly South – East Asia indebted to the Japanese for their blood sacrifices which undoubtedly contributed to the winning of our freedom from colonial rule?
Japan is the first Asian country to modernize and then take on one of the Great Western powers, the Russian Empire and defeat the Russian Navy in an epic naval battle at Port Arthur in 1905. This raised a great deal of hope in many Asian countries that were suffering under the Western jackboot. Who else in Asia at that point in time were capable of taking on the mighty West except for Japan? Despite Japan’s ultimate defeat it’s victories over Western colonial occupation armies in the early period of WW 2, triggered the independence of many Asian countries. Japan changed the colors of both East Asia and South East Asia on the world map.
Was Japan like its Western adversaries yet another colonial power seeking to expand its empire by war?
Yes and No. In fact, according to observers Japan had never actually been an empire” before its colonization of Korea with the tacit approval and support of America. Japan had learned lessons from its Western adversaries” and developed its technology on western lines after the so-called Meiji Restoration had established a theocratic oligarchy based on the model of a British peerage with a hastily adopted Constitution” predicated on the German model, which had an autocratic ruler i.e. the Kaiser that could amend the law by a simple edict.
The only time that Japan set out to conquer and colonise foreign lands in the medieval period was under Toyotomi Hideyoshi in the 16th century when he set out to conquer Korea. His naval armada was unsuccessful largely as a result of the valiant defence mounted by a Korean naval commander called Yi Sun-sin, who is a legend in Korea because of his victories against the Japanese Navy. After Hideyoshi’s death, the succeeding Tokugawa government not only prohibited any further military expeditions to the Asian mainland, but closed Japan to nearly all foreigners during the next 300 years.
It is time for people in Asia to review and re-write our history books. Start looking at issues not necessarily from the point of view of victors but also from the point of view of the defeated. Japan suffered defeat. But should Japan due to that alone continue to live in disgrace burdened with a heavy dose of ‘war guilt’ while others from the Occident who had benefited from colonial conquest, oppression and occupation of poor countries all over the world for centuries tend to walk with their head held high without accountability without remorse and without payment of reparations. There is an inversion of morality when such people loudly preach ‘tongue in cheek’ to the rest of the world on human rights, democracy, equality, rule of law and what not, without a qualm of conscience.
Who won freedom for Sri Lanka?
We obtained Independence in February 1948 because India and Pakistan received their independence in August 1947 and Burma in January 1948. It worked cumulatively almost in the form of a package deal.
When we talk of Asian independence movements it would be a remiss to ignore Japan’s significant military contribution towards weakening the might and resources of the British Empire during the 2nd World War.
Japan was the first Asian country to militarily defeat Russian and Anglo – American imperial armies and navies in epic battles in the Pacific and Indian Ocean regions that captured the spirit and imagination of the people of Asia long suppressed by western colonial powers and yearning for liberation, under the banner ‘Asia for Asians’.
Though Japan eventually lost the war its military effort was not in vain. It substantially weakened and demoralised the western countries then in occupation of large tracts of Asia, such as Britain, France, Netherlands, Portugal and USA that they were forced to quit Asia in next to no time.
It is political correctness and revelations of Japan’s conduct in war related atrocities during the Second World War that prevent Japan from being given due credit for its unique contribution towards hastening the liberation of Asia from western colonial rule.
Though we in Sri Lanka live under a self – styled grand delusion that independence for Sri Lanka was won from Britain exclusively by the efforts of our own leaders through exchange of letters over cups of tea, it is factually incorrect and a big myth. We were simply lucky. Our local effort was relatively minimal. History shows that it is the intervention of an external power that had always helped us to get rid of a foreign occupier from the soil of Sri Lanka.
For example, the Portuguese were expelled from Sri Lanka (then called ‘Sinhale’) in 1658 when the Kandyan King Rajasinghe II combined forces with the Dutch (an external power) to militarily defeat the Portuguese based on a treaty between the Kingdom of Kandy and theDutch Republic. It was signed by King Rajasinghe II for the Kingdom of Kandy and Adam Westerwold and William Jacobsz Coster, a commander and vice commander of the Dutch Naval Forces respectively, for the Dutch East India Company. The treaty was signed on 23 May, 1638 in Batticaloa. The treaty secured the terms under which the two nations would cooperate in defending the Kandyan Kingdom from the Portuguese. However this Treaty was very favourable to the Dutch. Then at the insistence of King Rajasinghe II who in 1647, requested for few modifications to a few articles of this agreement, the Dutch envoy Maetsuijker ‘negotiated the matter with great skill and patience and in the mid of 1649 the treaty of 1638, was in certain aspects altered and re-empowered’. (Valentijn vol. v, pt. 1 c Ceylon, page 121 vv, Berigten van Historisch Genootschap VII, 2, pp. 377 vv.).
The Dutch in turn were expelled when the Kings of Kandy appealed to the British (an external power ) who took over the coastal areas of Lanka from the Dutch in 1796. The intervention of an external power (in this case the British) was pivotal to get rid of the Dutch from Sri Lanka.
The people of Sri Lanka had to wait for nearly another 150 years when another external power i.e. Japan, intervened to defeat allied armies (and navies) all over Asia including Sri Lanka which was bombed by the Japanese in April 1942. As much as the Japanese Armies were welcomed in Burma, Indonesia, Malaya, Singapore, Philippines, Hong Kong, and wherever they went, it is likely that had the Japanese Imperial Army stepped foot on Lankan soil in 1942 the majority of the people particularly the Sinhala Buddhists would have welcomed the Japanese. The people of Sri Lanka particularly the Sinhalese have always resisted colonial occupation of the country. Further both the Japanese and the Sinhalese have a strong bond by sharing a common faith i.e.Buddhism, and the Japanese have always had a high regard for the Buddha whom they refer to as Sakyamuni.
J.R. Jayawardene in defence of a free Japan at the San Francisco conference (1951)
The words of Ceylon´s delegate Finance Minister J.R. Jayawardene in defence of a free Japan at the San Francisco conference on September 06, 1951 is worthy of reproduction here. He said:
We in Ceylon were fortunate that we were not invaded, but the damage caused by air raids, by the stationing of enormous armies under the South-East Asia Command, and by the slaughter-tapping of one of our main commodities, rubber, when we were the only producer of natural rubber for the Allies, entitles us to ask that the damage so caused should be repaired. We do not intend to do so for we believe in the words of the Great Teacher whose message has ennobled the lives of countless millions in Asia, that hatred ceases not by hatred but by love”. It is the message of the Buddha, the Great Teacher, the Founder of Buddhism which spread a wave of humanism through South Asia, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, Siam, Indonesia and Ceylon and also northwards through the Himalayas into Tibet, China and finally Japan, which bound us together for hundreds of years with a common culture and heritage. This common culture still exists, as I found on my visit to Japan last week on my way to attend this Conference; and from the leaders of Japan, Ministers of state as well as private citizens and from their priests in the temples, I gathered the impression that the common people of Japan are still influenced by’ the shadow of that Great Teacher of peace, and wish to follow it. We must give them that opportunity.”
After 1848 we never fought against the British Imperial armies through force of arms. There were neither civil disobedience movements in Sri Lanka like in India. In India the last great armed uprising by Indian soldiers was in 1857. The so – called Indian Mutiny was crushed but the Indian people with leaders like Mohandas Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhai Patel (a Gujerati) never gave up hope of liberation. They organized country wide civil disobedience movements under the banner of ‘Satyagraha ’. Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose took the radical step of joining hands with the axis powers i.e. Germany and Japan and raising an Indian National Army to liberate his country. Other fellow Asians in Japan, Burma, Indonesia, Vietnam, China, Malaya and Singapore fought and shed their blood fighting for Asia’s liberation from the yoke of Western imperialism. We benefited from their bloody sacrifices though we have yet to concede this fact. The British Empire would have clung to its colonial possessions in Asia for a much longer time, if Japan did not make aggressive war against the West in Asia with the support of the colonized people of Asia, and drive fear into the colonial west of the dangers of continuing with european colonial rule East of the Suez Canal. This was the only language that the imperial west understood and grudgingly respected.
Who won freedom for India?
Indian-born American writer, author and blogger, Dr. Susmit Kumar PhD, has claimed that Hitler, not Gandhi, should be given credit for the independence of India in 1947.
There is a saying that history is written by the victors of war. One of the greatest myths, first propagated by the Indian Congress Party in 1947 upon receiving the transfer of power from the British, and then by court historians, is that India received its independence as a result of Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violence movement. This is one of the supreme inaccuracies of Indian history because had there been no Hitler and no World War II, Gandhi’s movement would have slowly fizzled out because gaining full independence would have taken several more decades. By that time, Gandhi would have long been dead, and he would have gone down in history as simply one of several great Indian freedom fighters of the times, such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai, Motilal Nehru, Dada Bhai Naoroji, and C.R. Das. He would never have received the vast publicity that he did for his nonviolence movement. Political independence for India was achieved not by Mahatma Gandhi, but rather by Hitler rendering the British Empire a bankrupt entity.”
The reasons behind Indian independence are nicely summarized by the esteemed Indian historian Ramesh Chandra Majumdar:
There is, however, no basis for the claim that the Civil Disobedience Movement directly led to independence. The campaigns of Gandhi … came to an ignoble end about fourteen years before India achieved independence … During the First World War the Indian revolutionaries sought to take advantage of German help in the shape of war materials to free the country by armed revolt. But the attempt did not succeed. During the Second World War Subhas Bose followed the same method and created the INA. In spite of brilliant planning and initial success, the violent campaigns of Subhas Bose failed … The Battles for India’s freedom were also being fought against Britain, though indirectly, by Hitler in Europe and Japan in Asia. None of these scored direct success, but few would deny that it was the cumulative effect of all the three that brought freedom to India. In particular, the revelations made by the INA trial, and the reaction it produced in India, made it quite plain to the British, already exhausted by the war, that they could no longer depend upon the loyalty of the sepoys [low-ranking Indian soldiers under British command] for maintaining their authority in India. This had probably the greatest influence upon their final decision to quit India.”
British Prime Minister Atlee says Gandhi’s effort was ‘minimal’
It was British Prime Minister Clement Atlee who, when granting independence to India, said that Gandhi’s non-violence movement had next to zero effect on the British. In corroboration, Chief Justice P.B. Chakrabarty of the Kolkata High Court, who had earlier served as acting governor of West Bengal, disclosed the following in a letter addressed to the publisher of Ramesh Chandra Majumdar’s book A History of Bengal:
You have fulfilled a noble task by persuading Dr. Majumdar to write this history of Bengal and publishing it … In the preface of the book Dr. Majumdar has written that he could not accept the thesis that Indian independence was brought about solely, or predominantly by the non-violent civil disobedience movement of Gandhi. When I was the acting Governor, Lord Atlee, who had given us independence by withdrawing the British rule from India, spent two days in the Governor’s palace at Calcutta during his tour of India. At that time I had a prolonged discussion with him regarding the real factors that had led the British to quit India. My direct question to him was that since Gandhi’s Quit India” movement had tapered off quite some time ago and in 1947 no such new compelling situation had arisen that would necessitate a hasty British departure, why did they have to leave? In his reply Atlee cited several reasons, the principal among them being the erosion of loyalty to the British Crown among the Indian army and navy personnel as a result of the military activities of Netaji [Subhash Chandra Bose]. Toward the end of our discussion I asked Atlee what was the extent of Gandhi’s influence upon the British decision to quit India. Hearing this question, Atlee’s lips became twisted in a sarcastic smile as he slowly chewed out the word, m-i-n-i-m-a-l!”
In a remarkable documentary now available on YouTube under the title
‘Truth of World War II – What did Japan fight for?’
” You don’t understand how Malaysians and Singaporians and other nations of S E Asia felt and thought when Japanese military attacked and occupied Malaysia, Singapore, Burma and Indonesia etc. in the earlier part of the Pacific War” They were all inspired by the victories of the Japanese military which motivated their aspirations for independence, freedom from the yoke of colonial powers of the West.
” Britain was colonizing, enslaving Asian people before WW2. They ruled the Indian people for 180 years. It was Japan that got rid of the British from most of Asia and later all those countries gained independence”
” Japan lost WW2 but as the consequence of Japan’s entry to war all S E Asian countries and India achieved their long hoped for independence from the Western colonial powers within 15 years after the end of the War. As the famous British historian Arnold Toynbee and Lord Mountbatten, uncle of Queen Elizabeth II, said:
Japan put an end to West’s colonialism in Asia once and for all”
That’s why all S E Asian nations have sent their Kings, Presidents, Prime Ministers and other high ranking officials to visit Yasukuni Shrine to pay respect for the war dead. Not only that; American sailors, Italian soldiers, Argentine sailors, German military officials, French military, Spanish, Israelian, Chilean military, the former Indian National Army Colonel Sharzada Brandin Khan, Pakistani general
By Deborah Brautigam and Meg Rithmire/www.atlantic.com
Colombo, February 8 (www.theatlantic.com): China, we are told, inveigles poorer countries into taking out loan after loan to build expensive infrastructure that they can’t afford and that will yield few benefits, all with the end goal of Beijing eventually taking control of these assets from its struggling borrowers. As states around the world pile on debt to combat the coronavirus pandemic and bolster flagging economies, fears of such possible seizures have only amplified.
Seen this way, China’s internationalisation—as laid out in programs such as the Belt and Road Initiative—is not simply a pursuit of geopolitical influence but also, in some tellings, a weapon. Once a country is weighed down by Chinese loans, like a hapless gambler who borrows from the Mafia, it is Beijing’s puppet and in danger of losing a limb.
The prime example of this is the Sri Lankan port of Hambantota. As the story goes, Beijing pushed Sri Lanka into borrowing money from Chinese banks to pay for the project, which had no prospect of commercial success. Onerous terms and feeble revenues eventually pushed Sri Lanka into default, at which point Beijing demanded the port as collateral, forcing the Sri Lankan Government to surrender control to a Chinese firm.
The Trump administration pointed to Hambantota to warn of China’s strategic use of debt: In 2018, former Vice President Mike Pence called it ‘debt-trap diplomacy’—a phrase he used through the last days of the administration—and evidence of China’s military ambitions. Last year, erstwhile Attorney General William Barr raised the case to argue that Beijing is loading poor countries up with debt, refusing to renegotiate terms, and then taking control of the infrastructure itself.”
Debt-trap narrative: A powerful lie
As Michael Ondaatje, one of Sri Lanka’s greatest chroniclers, once said, In Sri Lanka a well-told lie is worth a thousand facts.” And the debt-trap narrative is just that: a lie, and a powerful one.
Our research shows that Chinese banks are willing to restructure the terms of existing loans and have never actually seized an asset from any country, much less the port of Hambantota. A Chinese company’s acquisition of a majority stake in the port was a cautionary tale, but it’s not the one we’ve often heard. With a new administration in Washington, the truth about the widely, perhaps willfully, misunderstood case of Hambantota Port is long overdue.
The city of Hambantota lies at the southern tip of Sri Lanka, a few nautical miles from the busy Indian Ocean shipping lane that accounts for nearly all of the ocean-borne trade between Asia and Europe, and more than 80% of ocean-borne global trade. When a Chinese firm snagged the contract to build the city’s port, it was stepping into an ongoing Western competition, though one the United States had largely abandoned.
It was the Canadian International Development Agency—not China—that financed Canada’s leading engineering and construction firm, SNC-Lavalin, to carry out a feasibility study for the port. We obtained more than 1,000 pages of documents detailing this effort through a Freedom of Information Act request. The study, concluded in 2003, confirmed that building the port at Hambantota was feasible, and supporting documents show that the Canadians’ greatest fear was losing the project to European competitors.
SNC-Lavalin recommended that it be undertaken through a joint-venture agreement between the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) and a ‘private consortium’ on a build-own-operate-transfer basis, a type of project in which a single company receives a contract to undertake all the steps required to get such a port up and running, and then gets to operate it when it is.
The Canadian project failed to move forward, mostly because of the vicissitudes of Sri Lankan politics. But the plan to build a port in Hambantota gained traction during the rule of the Rajapaksas—Mahinda Rajapaksa, who served as president from 2005 through 2015, and his brother Gotabaya, the current president and former minister of defence—who grew up in Hambantota. They promised to bring big ships to the region, a call that gained urgency after the devastating 2004 tsunami pulverised Sri Lanka’s coast and the local economy.
We reviewed a second feasibility report, produced in 2006 by the Danish engineering firm Ramboll, that made similar recommendations to the plans put forward by SNC-Lavalin, arguing that an initial phase of the project should allow for the transport of non-containerised cargo—oil, cars, grain—to start bringing in revenue, before expanding the port to be able to handle the traffic and storage of traditional containers. By then, the port in the capital city of Colombo, a hundred miles away and consistently one of the world’s busiest, had just expanded and was already pushing capacity. The Colombo port, however, was smack in the middle of the city, while Hambantota had a hinterland, meaning it offered greater potential for expansion and development.
To look at a map of the Indian Ocean region at the time was to see opportunity and expanding middle classes everywhere. Families in India and across Africa were demanding more consumer goods from China. Countries such as Vietnam were growing rapidly and would need more natural resources. To justify its existence, the port in Hambantota would have to secure only a fraction of the cargo that went through Singapore, the world’s busiest transshipment port.
Armed with the Ramboll report, Sri Lanka’s Government approached the United States and India; both countries said no. But a Chinese construction firm, China Harbor Group, had learned about Colombo’s hopes, and lobbied hard for the project. China Eximbank agreed to fund it, and China Harbor won the contract.
This was in 2007, six years before Xi Jinping introduced the Belt and Road Initiative. Sri Lanka was still in the last, and bloodiest, phase of its long civil war, and the world was on the verge of a financial crisis. The details are important: China Eximbank offered a $ 307 million, 15-year commercial loan with a four-year grace period, offering Sri Lanka a choice between a 6.3% fixed interest rate or one that would rise or fall depending on LIBOR, a floating rate. Colombo chose the former, conscious that global interest rates were trending higher during the negotiations and hoping to lock in what it thought would be favourable terms. Phase I of the port project was completed on schedule within three years.
For a conflict-torn country that struggled to generate tax revenue, the terms of the loan seemed reasonable. As Saliya Wickramasuriya, the former chairman of the SLPA, told us, To get commercial loans as large as $ 300 million during the war was not easy.” That same year, Sri Lanka also issued its first international bond, with an interest rate of 8.25%. Both decisions would come back to haunt the Government.
Finally, in 2009, after decades of violence, Sri Lanka’s civil war came to an end. Buoyed by the victory, the Government embarked on a debt-financed push to build and improve the country’s infrastructure. Annual economic growth rates climbed to 6%, but Sri Lanka’s debt burden soared as well.
In Hambantota, instead of waiting for phase 1 of the port to generate revenue as the Ramboll team had recommended, Mahinda Rajapaksa pushed ahead with phase 2, transforming Hambantota into a container port. In 2012, Sri Lanka borrowed another $ 757 million from China Eximbank, this time at a reduced, post-financial-crisis interest rate of 2%. Rajapaksa took the liberty of naming the port after himself.
By 2014, Hambantota was losing money. Realising that they needed more experienced operators, the SLPA signed an agreement with China Harbor and China Merchants Group to have them jointly develop and operate the new port for 35 years. China Merchants was already operating a new terminal in the port in Colombo, and China Harbor had invested $ 1.4 billion in Colombo Port City, a lucrative real-estate project involving land reclamation. But while the lawyers drew up the contracts, a political upheaval was taking shape.
Rajapaksa called a surprise election for January 2015 and in the final months of the campaign, his own health minister, Maithripala Sirisena, decided to challenge him. Like opposition candidates in Malaysia, the Maldives, and Zambia, the incumbent’s financial relations with China and allegations of corruption made for potent campaign fodder. To the country’s shock, and perhaps his own, Sirisena won.
Indian-made cars in Hambantota port waiting for transshipment
Dire fiscal straits
Steep payments on international sovereign bonds, which comprised nearly 40% of the country’s external debt, put Sirisena’s Government in dire fiscal straits almost immediately. When Sirisena took office, Sri Lanka owed more to Japan, the World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank than to China. Of the $ 4.5 billion in debt service Sri Lanka would pay in 2017, only 5% was because of Hambantota. The Central Bank governors under both Rajapaksa and Sirisena do not agree on much, but they both told us that Hambantota, and Chinese finance in general, was not the source of the country’s financial distress.
There was also never a default. Colombo arranged a bailout from the International Monetary Fund, and decided to raise much-needed dollars by leasing out the underperforming Hambantota Port to an experienced company—just as the Canadians had recommended. There was not an open tender, and the only two bids came from China Merchants and China Harbor; Sri Lanka chose China Merchants, making it the majority shareholder with a 99-year lease, and used the $ 1.12 billion cash infusion to bolster its foreign reserves, not to pay off China Eximbank.
Before the port episode, Sri Lanka could sink into the Indian Ocean and most of the Western world wouldn’t notice,” Subhashini Abeysinghe, research director at Verité Research, an independent Colombo-based think tank, told us. Suddenly, the island nation featured prominently in foreign-policy speeches in Washington. Pence voiced worry that Hambantota could become a ‘forward military base’ for China.
Yet Hambantota’s location is strategic only from a business perspective: The port is cut into the coast to avoid the Indian Ocean’s heavy swells, and its narrow channel allows only one ship to enter or exit at a time, typically with the aid of a tugboat. In the event of a military conflict, naval vessels stationed there would be proverbial fish in a barrel.
The notion of ‘debt-trap diplomacy’ casts China as a conniving creditor and countries such as Sri Lanka as its credulous victims. On a closer look, however, the situation is far more complex. China’s march outward, like its domestic development, is probing and experimental, a learning process marked by frequent adjustment. After the construction of the port in Hambantota, for example, Chinese firms and banks learned that strongmen fall and that they’d better have strategies for dealing with political risk. They’re now developing these strategies, getting better at discerning business opportunities and withdrawing where they know they can’t win. Still, American leaders and thinkers from both sides of the aisle give speeches about China’s ‘modern-day colonialism.’
Over the past 20 years, Chinese firms have learned a lot about how to play in an international construction business that remains dominated by Europe: Whereas China has 27 firms among the top 100 global contractors, up from nine in 2000, Europe has 37, down from 41. The US has seven, compared to 19 two decades ago.
Chinese firms are not the only companies to benefit from Chinese-financed projects. Perhaps no country was more alarmed by Hambantota than India, the regional giant that several times rebuffed Sri Lanka’s appeals for investment, aid, and equity partnerships. Yet an Indian-led business, Meghraj, joined the UK-based engineering firm Atkins Ltd., in an international consortium to write the long-term plan for Hambantota Port and for the development of a new business zone. The French firms Bolloré and CMA-CGM have partnered with China Merchants and China Harbor in port developments in Nigeria, Cameroon, and elsewhere.
The other side of the debt-trap myth involves debtor countries. Places such as Sri Lanka—or, for that matter, Kenya, Zambia, or Malaysia—are no stranger to geopolitical games. And they’re irked by American views that they’ve been so easily swindled. As one Malaysian politician remarked to us, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss how Chinese finance featured in that country’s political drama, Can’t the US State Department tell the difference between campaign rhetoric that our opponents are slaves to China and actually being slaves to China?”
The events that led to a Chinese company’s acquisition of a majority stake in a Sri Lankan port reveal a great deal about how our world is changing. China and other countries are becoming more sophisticated in bargaining with one another. And it would be a shame if the US fails to learn alongside them.
(Deborah Brautigam is Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. Meg Rithmire is F. Warren McFarlan Associate Professor at Harvard Business School.)
Colombo, Colombo, February 8: The oft-repeated advice given by foreign policy wizards to smaller countries who are victims of power rivalry is that they should understand the reality of geopolitics. Sri Lanka, a country that burnt its fingers once for ignoring geopolitics, is well aware of the bitter realities and is always eager to come to an understanding with regional and global powers, while zealously guarding its independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Sri Lanka’s gratitude to friends was well displayed at the simple, but majestic, parade on the occasion of the 73rd Independence Day last Thursday. The armory proudly displayed its gleaming 105 mm guns received from China and the Indra radars received from India which can detect aircraft intruding into Lankan airspace. Ironically, the sole occasion on which the airspace of independent Sri Lanka was violated was in June 1987, when Indian fighter jets accompanied the Indian transport planes flew over north Sri Lanka to drop parippu (dhal) to the allegedly ‘starving people of Jaffna’.
The current spat between New Delhi and Colombo arose when the Lankan government dropped the proposal to collaborate with India and Japan to develop the strategic East Container Terminal (ECT) at the Colombo Port due to strong opposition from trade unions, political and religious groups across the country.
Memorandum of Cooperation
Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa announced that the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) would build and operate the ECT on its own. At the same time the cabinet approved a proposal to develop the West Terminal at the Colombo Port as a Public Private Partnership with India and Japan, which was seen as a bid to compensate India. However, immediate reports indicate that India is unwilling to accept the latest proposal.
Indian Media, quoted a spokesperson of the Indian High Commission in Colombo, as stating that the Government of India expected the expeditious implementation of the trilateral Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) signed in May 2019 between Sri Lanka, India and Japan. The commitment of the Government of Sri Lanka in this regard had been conveyed several times in the recent past, including at the leadership level. All sides should continue to abide by the existing understandings and commitment,” the High Commission said.
Japan, too expressed regret after the announcement on the ECT was made. A Japanese embassy official in New Delhi responding to a media query, expressed regret at the unilateral decision taken by Sri Lanka”. In the aftermath of the development, the Japan envoy to Colombo Akira Sugiyama met Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena.
Meanwhile, the Indian External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Anurag Srivastava said at a media briefing in New Delhi: As is well known, the Governments of India, Sri Lanka and Japan had signed a memorandum of cooperation in May 2019 to develop and operate the East Container Terminal of Colombo Port in a trilateral framework. We sincerely believe that the development of infrastructure in Sri Lanka, in areas such as ports and energy, with foreign investment from India and Japan, will be a mutually beneficial proposition.”
He added the Indian High Commissioner in Colombo is in talks with the Lankan Government on the issue. Our High Commissioner in Colombo is in discussion with the Government of Sri Lanka, including on the importance of adhering to international commitments,” he said. India’s response was that Sri Lanka should not be taking a decision in a unilateral manner on an existing tripartite agreement.
Referring to the Sri Lankan offer of the Western Container Terminal (WCT) to India, some experts told the Indian media that commercially, the WCT offer is better for India as it gives a larger stake for developers of the WCT against the 49 per cent in ECT. But even if this is a better deal for investors, including the Adani Group, the final decision has to come from the Indian government. Geo-politically too, the WCT is almost the same when the security aspect and the necessity to have a port terminal in Sri Lanka is considered.
Start From Scratch
Furthermore, WCT is no smaller in size or depth compared to the ECT. There is no difference between East and West Terminals except the development of the ECT is partially completed while the development of the West Terminal has to start from scratch.
However, the ECT decision should not be taken as an irreparable blow to Indo-Lanka relations. It certainly will not take back the relationship to June 1987, when ties hit rock bottom. In this era of development and cooperation, bullying tactics have no place and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has a special regard for neighbors. Leaders of both countries have a perfect rapport and an amicable consensus could be reached through frank exchange of opinions.
It must be noted that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in his meeting with Indian External Affairs Minister last month expressed a desire to strengthen the bilateral relationship through post COVID-19 economic development. India will be a reliable partner in Sri Lanka’s development” Jaishankar said. Strengthening the bilateral relationship between Sri Lanka and India through post COVID-19 economic development, health care, power generation etc. were discussed thoroughly,” he added
Although, some critics of the Sri Lankan Government hope for hostilities between India and Sri Lanka to rise and anticipate many national and international impacts surrounding the latest decision on ECT, the saner opinion is that the issue will die down soon with the offer of the WCT to India. Sri Lanka Port Authority officials are confident that the issue could be settled once for all with the offer of WCT.
John Keells Holding PLC (JKH), the largest public listed conglomerate in Sri Lanka and the Adani group, at the Indian side, may agree with WTC offer as a compromise formula with a promise that the private stake will be 85 per cent in WTC instead of 49 per cent at ECT,” he told Indian media.
Sensitivity and understanding
There could be some opposition from a section of port trade unions, but that could be handled, the official said. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in his Independence Day address said, I will never take decisions that will damage the country and to please those who seek gains for themselves personally or for their businesses.”
It is now for India to be sensitive to Sri Lankan political compulsions. When External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj visited Sri Lanka in 2018, she clearly showed her sensitivity towards Sri Lanka and her perfect understanding about the internal and external issues in this country.
At one discussion with then President Maithripala Sirisena, her Foreign Secretary Jaishankar (now External Affairs Minister) said India wanted an immediate decision on ECT and President Sirisena explained that he could not decide immediately as that could become an issue at the upcoming local government elections. When Jaishankar raised the issue once again, Minister Sushma Swaraj intervened and said, No. If His Excellency thinks this is not the best time for that project, let us wait. We have to understand his sensitivities”.
It is now hoped Minister Jaishankar would display the same magnanimity, understanding, patience and sensitivity shown by his late predecessor.
An Opposition political grouping has accused the SLPP government of planning to deprive civic rights of several members of parliament and ex-MPs.
Opposition activists former Deputy Minister Karu Paranavithana, Attorney-at-Law Crishmal Warnasuriya, Attorney-at-Law Shiral Lakthilaka and Ananda Lanarolle alleged the government targeted former Prime Miniter and UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, SJB MPs Patali Champika Ranawaka, Dr. Rajitha Senaratne and Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka, JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake, SLMC leader Rauff Hakeem and TNA leader R. Sampanthan on the basis of the report of the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (PCoI) into Political Victimization.
Public servants implicated in the PCoI report, too, face the possibility of losing civic rights.
The issue was taken up at a press conference called at the National Library and Documentation Services Board on Friday (5).
The PCoI consisted of retired Supreme Court Judge Upali Abeyratne, retired Court of Appeal Judge Daya Chandrasiri Jayathilake and retired IGP Chandra Fernando. Ms. Pearl Weerasinghe functioned as the Secretary to the PCoI.
President Gotabaya Rajapaksa received the report on January 8. The President appointed the PCoI on January 20, 2020.
The PCoI inquired into alleged cases of political victimization that took place in the wake of investigations conducted by the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption, FCID, CID and the Special Investigation Unit of the Police from January 8, 2015 to November 16, 2019.
Lakthilaka alleged that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa was planning a Myanmar style authoritarian rule. The SJB National List nominee said that the electorate empowered Gotabaya Rajapaksa at the Nov 2019 presidential poll, in spite of them repeatedly warning of the looming threat of dictatorship in case the SLPP candidate won.
Alleging that the Justice Abeyratne committee report had been prepared outside the existing law, one-time advisor to President Maithripala Sirisena warned of dire consequences if the government exploited the report to advance its despicable political agenda. Lakthilaka claimed that PCoI project threatened the very basis of the country’s judiciary.
Asked to explain what the Bar Association of Sri Lanka’s role should be, Lakthilaka told The Island yesterday (7) that if the BASL, the Law Commission and the Justice Minister addressed the issues at hand, there was no requirement for them to take it up. Pointing out that the BASL election was around the corner, Lakthilaka said that the primary body representing the interests of the lawyers and the Law Commission couldn’t remain silent on the matter.
Addressing Friday’s media briefing, lawyer Lakthilaka urged President Gotabaya Rajapaksa not to abuse and exploit available laws and the follow democratic way of governance.
Karu Paranavithana said that the PCoI process threatened Sri Lanka’s judicial system. Pointing out that the electorate overwhelmingly empowered Gotabaya Rajapaksa with executive powers, the former Deputy Media Minister alleged the President was bent on seeking dictatorial powers. Paranavithana compared what he called judicial crisis in Sri Lanka with Myanmar military seizing executive, parliamentary and judicial powers for a period of one year.
Paranavithana also claimed that the Abeyratne report had created necessary ground situation for an authoritarian administration.
The former yahapalana MP questioned the justification in appointing a Special PCoI to examine the Abeyratne report. The Special PCoI was established by way of a gazette extraordinary, dated January 29, 2021. The Special PCoI will be chaired by Supreme Court Justice Dhammika Samarakoon and will also comprise SC Justice Kumuduni Wickremasinghe and Court of Appeal Judge Ratnapriya Gurusinghe.
Lawyer Warnasuriya asked whether a Special PCoI could be appointed to examine PCoI report appointed in terms of another Act. Warning of calculated efforts to undermine the supremacy of the judiciary, Warnasuriya expressed confidence that those who had been appointed to the Special PCoI, too, would recognize the looming danger. Warnasuriya assured that whatever the challenges; they would definitely stand by the public and do everything possible to thwart the SLPP’s political project.
Ananda Lanarolle urged all members of the judiciary to take a common stand.
Meanwhile, former Additional Solicitor General Srinath Perera told the media that the Abeyratne report if implemented could destroy the public faith in the judiciary. Perera explained how the government sought to exploit the report to its advantage at the expense of all democratic institutions and cleared those near and dear to the administration who had been found guilty of courts or were currently facing proceedings.
Opposition activist Lal Wijenayake yesterday told The Island that the judiciary would be definitely moved against the government in that regard. Wijenayake said that they were in the process of discussing ways and means of tackling the threat and judicial measures would be taken.
Legislation will be introduced to Parliament in the near future to give legal provisions to provide military training to the youth, Minister of Public Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera said yesterday.
Rear Admiral who was speaking during the Colombo District Public Security Committees Convention at Youth Centre Maharagama said the training will be aimed at making the Sri Lankan youth a disciplined lot.
I proposed providing military training to the Youth in the recent past and received many criticisms. One of the retired senior military personnel accused me of reciting fairy tales. However, if we design a proper training course under which youth are trained in various aspects such as the geological importance of our island nation, our youth will come out as a disciplined lot. Also if such training will be more effective if we provide training in military camps,” he stated.
We did give training to university students during the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime before 2015. One such youth phoned me and told me that the training they were provided was effective. He actually requested for yet another training, the Minister said.the Minister said Public Security committees have a special role to play.public security committees will comprise retired security/police officers and abled youth in the villages. One of the roles these committees will have to play is to provide information to police about the criminals, child molesters, rapists, drug dealers and illicit liquor producers. (YOHAN PERERA)
It is expected to vaccinate the workforce between the ages 30 and 60 years against the COVID-19 pandemic from March this year, says State Minister Dr. Sudarshani Fernandopulle.
The State Minister of Primary Health Care, Epidemics, and COVID Disease Control said that 4,000 centers have been planned to be utilized for this task.
She added that these centers will administer a total of 300 vaccinations each, with 2,000 centers in operation per day.
As per Sri Lanka’s COVID-19 figures, 10 percent of the total number of confirmed positive cases is above the age of 60; however, the majority belong to the age group between 30 – 60 years.
Meanwhile, the vaccination of high-risk groups against COVID-19 will commence after vaccinating the health workers, said Dr. Amal Harsha de Silva, Secretary to the State Ministry of Primary Health Care, Epidemics, and COVID Disease Control.
Epidemiologist at the Colombo Municipal Council, Dr. Dinuka Guruge stated that all health workers with the council limits have been given the COVID-19 vaccine.
As per the Epidemiology Unit of the Health Ministry, a total of 161,773 individuals have been given the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine so far since the commencement of the COVID-19 vaccination drive on January 29.
On February 03, the State Pharmaceutical Corporation (SPC) has sent the purchase order for another 18 million doses of Oxford-AstraZeneca’s Covishield vaccines manufactured by India.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has agreed to provide Sri Lanka with 20 percent of the vaccine requirement to vaccinate 4.2 million of the population.
On the 28th of January, a consignment of 500,000 Covishield vaccines was donated to Sri Lanka by the Indian Government under its Vaccine Maitri” (Vaccine Friendship) initiative, following a request made by the President to Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi.
Accordingly, Sri Lanka kicked off its inoculation drive on the 29th of January. More than 100,000 persons have been administered the vaccine so far. Under the first phase, Sri Lanka expects to vaccinate some 150,000 health workers, 120,000 members of Tri-Forces, Police, and security forces who are at the frontline of COVID-19 prevention operations, on a priority basis.
Covishield is the name for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine manufactured in India. The shots developed by UK-based drugmaker AstraZeneca and Oxford University are being mass-produced at India’s Serum Institute – the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer.
The vaccine, which is known as Covishield, is developed from a weakened version of a common cold virus (known as an adenovirus) from chimpanzees. This was approved for emergency use by the Government of Sri Lanka last month
The Director General of Health Services has confirmed nine more Covid-19 related deaths, increasing the death toll due to the virus in Sri Lanka to 365.
The victims reported today includes three females and six males:
01. The deceased is a 95-year-old male from Colombo 15. He died on 05.02.2021 at his residence and the Cause of death is mentioned as Covid pneumonia.
02. The deceased is a 61-year-old female from Anuradhapura. She was diagnosed as infected with Covid-19 virus and transferred from Teaching Hospital Anuradhapura to the Base Hospital Homagama where she died on 08.02.2021 while receiving treatment in the Intensive Care Unit. The cause of death is mentioned as a shock due to blood poisoning and Heart failure with Covid pneumonia.
03. The deceased is a 50-year-old male from Kurunegala. He was diagnosed as infected with Covid-19 virus and transferred from Teaching Hospital Kurunegala to the Base Hospital Homagama where he died on 08.02.2021. The cause of death is mentioned as Covid pneumonia.
04. The deceased is a 70-year-old male from Negombo. He was diagnosed as infected with Covid-19 virus and transferred from Chest Hospital Welisara to the Base Hospital Homagama where he died on 07.02.2021. The cause of death is mentioned as Covid pneumonia and failure in the respiratory system.
05. The deceased is a 45-year-old female from Colombo 12. She was diagnosed as infected with Covid-19 virus and transferred from General Hospital Colombo to the Base Hospital Homagama where she died on 07.02.2021. The cause of death is mentioned as Covid pneumonia and a cancer.
06. The deceased is a 76-year-old female from Kayts. She was diagnosed as infected with Covid-19 and transferred from a private hospital in Colombo to the Teaching Hospital Jaffna where she died on 07.02.2021. The cause of death is mentioned as Covid pneumonia and paralysis.
07. The deceased is a 61-year-old male from Horana. He was diagnosed as infected with Covid-19 virus and transferred from Apeksha Hospital Maharagama to the Base Hospital Mulleriyawa where he died on 08.02.2021. The cause of death is mentioned as blood poisoning, Covid pneumonia and a lung cancer.
08. The deceased is a 42-year-old male from Gurudeniya. He was diagnosed as infected with Covid-19 and transferred from National Hospital Kandy to the Base Hospital Homagama where he died on 01.02.2021. The cause of death is mentioned as Covid pneumonia and blood poisoning.
09. The deceased is a 73-year-old male from Mawanella. He was diagnosed as infected with Covid-19 virus and transferred from Base Hospital Mawanella to the Base Hospital Theldeniya where he died on 08.02.2021. The cause of death is mentioned as Covid pneumonia and a heart disease.
The Ministry of Health says that another 364 persons have tested positive for the novel coronavirus today, as the tally of confirmed cases in the country crossed the 70,000 mark.
Nineteen of them are from the prisons cluster while the remaining are close contacts of infected patients from the Peliyagoda cluster.
A total of 878 new cases have been reported so far today (08).
This brings the total number of Covid-19 cases from the Minuwangoda, Peliyagoda and prisons clusters to 66,225.
Accordingly, the total number of cases reported in the country thus far has reached 70,235.
Total recoveries stands at 64,141 while 5,729 patients infected with the virus are currently under medical care.
The death toll due to the virus has climbed to 365.
On 11 February 2013 the UNHRC Head Navi Pillay presented A/HRC/22/38 report to the UNHRC. The idea of summarizing these reports is to showcase how Geneva hijacked what claimed to be questioning what happened inside a war zone to include a plethora of non-conflict related issues and scare the GoSL into accepting the lists of ‘changes’ the UN and lobbying countries wanted to force upon Sri Lanka. It also raises the questions if the LLRC were also given a checklist of what to include into their report because the LLRC also speak volumes of non-conflict related items exactly what the UNHRC ordered. The manner UNHRC head picks points from the LLRC based on recommendations makes any to wonder whether it was all a set up!
Summary of OHCHR heads report covered
Acknowledges that the LLRC made ‘significant & far-reaching recommendations towards reconciliation & strengthening the rule of law in Sri Lanka”
Claims GoSL has made only ‘selected recommendations’ of the LLRC & has not engaged civil society (was this a mandatory requirement)
Acknowledged that the GoSL has made ‘significant progress in rebuilding infrastructure’
Acknowledged that the ‘majority of IDPs have been resettled’
Highlights not conflict-zone related items taking place in the past year which has no bearing on the reason for the resolutions on Sri Lanka.
Introduction of OHCHR head
In June 2010 UNSG appointed a Panel of Experts to advise him on accountability issues
The Panel completed report on 31 March 2011 & submitted report to UNSG in April 2011 with ‘credible allegations’
The Panel of Experts accused the GoSL & Armed Forces of
Killing civilians through widespread shelling
Shelling hospitals & humanitarian objects
Denial of humanitarian assistance
Human rights violations suffered by victims & survivors of the conflict
Human rights violations outside the conflict zone (including against media & critics of GoSL)
The Panel of Experts accused the LTTE
Using civilians as human buffer
Killing civilians attempting to flee LTTE control
Using military equipment in the proximity of civilians
Forced recruitment of children
Forced labor
Killing of civilians through suicide attacks
UNHRC head says the GoSL has ‘not afforded any credence or legitimacy to the report of the Panel’
July 2012 GoSL presented a national plan of action based on LLRC
Nov 2012 Sri Lanka Army appointed a board of inquiry to study LLRC recommendations and implement recommendations relevant to the Army
What is important about the OHCHR Heads report is the question of how she can utilize a personally commissioned report by the UNSG and refer to it against a sovereign country which was to later become the basis and foundation for successive resolutions in Geneva against Sri Lanka.
What has to be reiterated is that this personally commissioned report had no mandate of the UNSC or UNGA and was never tabled in either and the Panel of Expert Report was not even tabled in the UNHRC for Sri Lanka to officially respond to. The Darsuman Report was leaked to the Public. This leaked report is what the UNHRC head is using to quote from.
Engagement by Office of the High Commissioner
24 Feb 2012, the UNHRC head met with Sri Lanka’s Minister of External Affairs & offered UNHRC assistant to implement LLRC.
On 14 May 2012 the UNHRC head wrote to Sri Lanka’s Minister of External Affairs to propose a visit by OHCHR officials to Sri Lanka.
13-21 September 2012 OHCHR technical mission visited Sri Lanka
26 Nov 2012 the UNHRC head wrote to Sri Lanka’s Minister of External Affairs to appreciate GoSL’s efforts to facilitate visit
17 Dec 2012 The Minister of External Affairs replies to UNHRC Head
Engagement by human rights mechanisms
OHCHR Head says there are 8 outstanding requests to visit Sri Lanka by special procedures mandate holders but their visits had not been agreed by the GoSL
Minority issues
Freedom of peaceful assembly & association’
Freedom of opinion and expression
Extrajudicial, Summary executions
Enforced or involuntary disappearances
Human rights defenders
Independence of judges & laywers
Discrimination against women in law & practice
National plan of action for the implementation of recommendations of LLRC
OHCHR head claims that there are concerns regarding the ‘mandate, composition & methodology of the LLRC including its interpretation of applicable principles of IHL’
OHCHR head says the LLRC concluded that ‘the root cause of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka lies in the failure of successive governments to address the genuine grievances of the Tamil people’ and that the ‘process of reconciliation requires a full acknowledgement of the tragedy of the conflict and a collective act of contrition by the political leaders & civil society of both Sinhala & Tamil communities”.
OHCHR head says that the LLRC paid ‘considerable attention to allegations concerning missing persons
OHCHR head says that the Commission paid considerable attention to allegations concerning missing persons and enforced disappearances & called for further investigations.
OHCHR head also says that the LLRC said that it ‘expressed repeated concern at the lack of government implementation of its own interim recommendations as well as previous commissions of inquiry”
Areas of concern identified in HRC Resolution 19/2
Rule of Law & administration of Justice
LLRC report stressed that for peace & stability – independent judiciary, transparent legal process & strict adherence to the rule of law are essential.
LLRC welcomed lifting of Emergency Regulations in August 2011
OHCHR heads says the Act was used to arrest 4 students from Jaffna University for marking LTTE commemorative day on 27 November
LLRC called to delink police department from Ministry of Defense
LLRC called for the independence of the judiciary & independent commissions
OHCHR also highlights the impeachment of the Chief Justice and connects it to LLRC recommendations.
Credible investigations of widespread allegations of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearanc
Extrajudicial killings– OHCHR report says the LLRC could not determine precise circumstances loss of civilian lives occurred but recommended the state investigate action by security forces. LLRC had also recommended independent investigation into allegations of torture & extrajudicial killings arising from video footage broadcast by Channel 4. This was assigned to the Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Justice, AG’s dept and Presidential Secretariat. LLRC also recommended inquiry into civilian injuries and deaths from shelling and examination into inadequacy of medical supplies to civilians in conflict areas. OHCHR head says these recommendations were not included in the national action plan.
OHCHR report also says that the GoSL had appointed a court of inquiry to investigate instances of civilian casualties mentioned in LLRC & to investigate allegations broadcast by Channel 4. The Court of Inquiry had examined 50 witnesses and had investigated more than 50 alleged incidents of shelling as of mid January 2013. OHCHR head says she is concerned about the transparency, independence, impartiality of the process and the protection of witnesses and victims.
LLRC had strongly recommended implementation of recommendations of previous unpublished presidential commission of inquiry which included the 2005 deaths of 5 students in Trincomalee and 17 aid workers of Action contra le faim in Muttur in August 2006.
OHCHR report states that Sri Lanka at the 2ndUPR accepted a recommendation to ‘ensure the adequate completion of investigation into the killings of aid workers’.
OHCHR technical mission had raised concern over delays in the cases, the SL AG responded that the quality of investigations & evidence collected to date had prevented him from proceeding with charges and prosecutions.
Replying to the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions in October 2012, GoSL had stated that the AG had advised the IGP to conduct investigations. GoSL had said if adequate evidence was disclosed filing indictments was possible.
OHCHR Report highlights 2 incidents of prisoners killed in custody – riot in Vavuniya prison in June 2012 claiming police used excessive force and prisoners were subject to torture resulting in death of 2 remand prisoners, next the Welikada prison riot of November 2012 resulting in deaths of 27 prisoners and 43 wounded.
Missing persons & enforced disappearances
Missing persons– OHCHR Report says LLRC called for a comprehensive approach to address issue of missing persons and requested implementation of recommendations of previous commissions. OHCHR states the GoSL has yet to establish such mechanism to trace adults gone missing during later stages of the war & investigate disappearances.
OHCHR head claims that missing persons are those whose whereabouts are unknown as a result of armed conflict or internal violence, while enforced disappearances is the deprivation of liberty of a person by the State & concealment of whereabouts of disappeared person.
LLRC has recommended law enforcement authorities to cooperate with relevant bodies like ICRC to trace whereabouts of missing persons. OHCHR says the GoSL had not included this in national action plan though it established a tracing program for missing children. GoSL had recorded 2564 untraceable persons of whom 676 were children and 1888 adults. Tracing requests related to children had been for children recruited by LTTE.
LLRC had also recommended providing assistance (legal aid/psychosocial support) to families of missing. OHCHR head claims this is also not included in national action plan.
LLRC had recommended creation of a centralized system of data collection on missing persons by different agencies and assigned to the Ministry of Defense in partnership with Dept of Census & Statistics. OHCHR report questions how centralization of data is possible and claims victims’ relatives must have trust & confidence in such a set up.
OHCHR reports says the GoSL stated Registration of Deaths (Temporary Provisions) Act 19 of 2010 envisages issuance of death certificates to next of kin & families of missing to claim monies due to them. The UNSG’s Panel of Experts in its report states issuance of a death certificate following an administrative process is not a substitute for a bona fide investigation into the circumstances of an individual’s death which meets international standards. It is also crucial to ensure that a relative acceptance of a death certificate does not lock the individual into a definitive legal position that precludes any further legal recourse in the future”
Enforced Disappearances– OHCHR claims LLRC recommended a special commissioner of investigation be appointed & supported by experienced investigators to investigate alleged disappearances & provide AG material for further action. GoSL had incorporated this into national action plan but did not commit to establishing a new mechanism & instead relied on existing system provided in Code of Criminal Procedure, OHCHR head reports.
OHCHR report also states that LLRC recommended domestic legislation to criminalize enforced disappearances which the National Action Plan agreed to examine. OHCHR report also states GoSL accepted recommendations to adopt measures to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for serious human rights crimes such as enforced disappearances, in accordance with international norms and in a transparent manner.”
OHCHR Head claims that as of November 2012, the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances had 5676 cases of enforced or involuntary disappearance in Sri Lanka outstanding. At the UPF, GoSL stated that more than 4000 of these cases were related to pre-1990 period and 1089 cases belonged to 1991 and 2005 period.
LLRC recommended a full investigation with prosecutions where necessary for cases of alleged disappearances of those who had surrendered to and/or been arrested by the security forces during the end of armed conflict. The GoSL in its national action plan instructed Ministry of Defense to complete ongoing disciplinary process and Ministry of Justice & AG’s dept to take follow up action to prosecute.
Detention policies
LLRC had recommended law enforcement agencies to strictly adhere to existing legal provisions when arresting and detention. LLRC called to designate all places of detention and provide access to next of kin to see detainees. OHCHR head states in her report that the GoSL had not included these in the national action plan.
LLRC had recommended an independent advisory committee to monitor and examine arrest & detention of persons taken into custody (vis a vis Public security ordinance or PTA). GoSL had given this responsibility to the Ministry of Public Administration & Home Affairs.
OHCHR report states that the LLRC had recommended a centralized database for detainees with access to next of kin. this was assigned to the Ministry of Defense under the National Action Plan. GoSL stated that this database is with the Terrorist Investigation Division of the Police and 3073 next of kin had made inquiries. OHCHR head states that this does not address families of those whose members went missing during last stages of war or surrendered to the army and disappeared thereafter.
OHCHR Report states that some detainees at Boossa Detention Centre had spent lng periods of detention without charges filed against them, the Commission in its report reiterated its interim recommendation that ‘a special mechanism be created to examine such cases on a case by case basis & recommend a course of action in regard to disposal of each case, as appropriate’. GoSL’s national action plan called the AGs dept to identify and estabalish procedure within existing system to address issue and complete decision-making regarding detainees. In Jan 2011, a 4member special committee by AG’s dept was set up to study cases of LTTE suspects in detention & expedite release for rehabilitation or expedite investigations to hardcore LTTE members.
At the UPR, GOSL stated that as at 22 October 2012, 11012 people including 594 LTTE child soldiers had been rehabilitated & reintegrated into society and that only 782 were undergoing rehabilitation while 262 were under judicially mandated remand custody.
On 23 May 2012, the Leader of the House in Parliament stated that 4 special courts to hear cases against LTTE were to be established but as of end of 2012 the courts were not functioning.
OHCHR Head’s report found fault with Sri Lanka’s post-rehabilitation monitoring of LTTE combatants citing that asking them to report to nearest police, army camp or having intel visit their homes was a ‘harassment’ and a social ‘stigma’ especially for women LTTE.
Internal displacement and land issues
LLRC noted that returning of displaced during final stages of armed conflict had been almost complete, there were concerns regarding the needs of those resettled.
LLRC had recommended establishing a special committee re displaced Muslims as far back as October 1990
OHCHR reports states that in 2011 October the GoSL had committed to a national policy on displacement within 6 months but no comprehensive national policy had been drafted or adopted.
OHCHR report states there is no official figures on IDPs and no comprehensive profiling of displaced persons since 2007. At end of 2012 UNHCR sourced GoSL data revealed approximately 483,300 individuals had turned to their area of origin while about 94,000 remain displaced.
Those displaced after April 2008 & housed at Menik Farm (approximately 271,200) returned to areas of origin while estimated 18,000 continued to live with host families or in welfare camps, transit situations or on relocation sites.
LLRC had recommended that assistance be provided to returnees to enable them to repair and build permanent houses – basic infrastructure needs, adequate roads, schools, hospitals but OHCHR report says these were not incorporated into national action plan.
OHCHR technical mission had visited resettlement sites
OHCHR report also states that LLRC recommended GoSL to have a clear resettlement policy.
Right to Freedom of Opinion & Expression
LLRC had recommended investigation of attacks on journalists and media institutions & to impose deterrent punishment – the national action plan was to investigate current cases by police with Ministry of Mass Media & Information to ensure media freedom.
OHCHR report cites that the GoSL accepted recommendations at the UPR n 2008 to ensure a safe environment for human rights defenders, investigate allegations of attacks on journalists, media personnel & human rights defenders & prosecute those responsible.
OHCHR Report cites 2012 harassment of journalists & media institution & 29 June 2012 CID raiding office of Sri Lanka X News & sister website Sri Lanka Mirror – 9 staff arrested and released on bail.
5 July 2012 failed attempt to abduct a journalist by two men in white van.
Demilitarization
LLRC had also recommended to reduce military involvement in civilian matters which was assigned in national plan of action to the Ministry of Defense. OHCHR report states that several important civilian functions were brought under purview of Ministry of Defnse (NGO Secretariat & UDA in 2010)
OHCHR report cites that the military continues to occupy land formerly occupied by civilians – Mullikulam in Mannar, Keppapulavu in Mullaitivu.
LLRC made recommendations on the role of women for national action plan
LLRC had also promoted reconciliation in consultation with interfaith groups to prevent future conflict resulting from communal or religious tensions.
LLRC recommended the implementation of 13a
LLRC on reparations – says those eligible should have access within a reasonable time.
OHCHR report also highlights need to have a memorial for civilian dead in the war.
OHCHR report objects to LTTE cemeteries being destroyed.
OHCHR report also objects to Army building ‘Lagoon’s Edge’ holiday bungalow on the site of the last battle where ‘thousands are believed to have been killed’
Possible areas of technical assistance by the Office of the High Commissioner
26 Nov 2012 OHCHR technical mission’s visit to Sri Lanka, OHCHR Head wrote to the GoSL to propose technical cooperation pursuant o 19/2 HRC Resolution – under 4 categoris
Comprehensive & human rights-based approach to transitional justice (right to truth)
Criminal justice & accountability
Legal & Institutional Reforms
Right to Remedy & Reparations
Based on LLRC’s identified cases of serious violations of human rights OHCHR urged the publication of Presidential Commission of Inquiry report of 2006 and offered assistance in identifying international experts in criminal & forensic investigations to review relevant case files. OHCHR head also offered advice to draft laws dealing with witness and victim protection, right to information, criminalization of enforced disappearances & revision of existing laws to bring in line with international Covenant on Civil & Political Rights & Convention against Torture & Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. OHCHR head also offered to help strengthen & ensure independence of national institutions.
OHCHR Head also offered technical assistance to develop national reparations policy with international standards.
OHCHR head stressed need for a comprehensive approach to address transitional justice including criminal justice & accountability.
OHCHR head say she wished to see ‘meaningful progress’ before her visit in 2013.
Conclusion & Recommendations
OHCHR report claims that to achieve reconciliation is only possible through a genuine, consultative & inclusive process that addresses grievances of all those affected by the conflict”
OHCHR head says that LLRC had made ‘significant and far-reaching recommendations for reconciliation & strengthening the rule of law”.
OHCHR head says GoSL has only committed to some LLRC recommendations and has not engaged civil society to support process.
OHCHR head says the steps by GoSL to investigate ‘allegations of serious violations of human rights are inconclusive, lack independence and impartiality’
OHCHR head recommends the GoSL
Give positive consideration to the offer of assistance in her letter dated 26 Nov 2012 to
Establish a truth-seeking mechanism as an integral part of a more comprehensive & inclusive approach to transitional justice
Criminal & forensic investigations to review relevant case files & advise on additional lines of inquiry to resolve outstanding cases to international standards
Draft laws dealing with witness & victim protection, right to information, criminalization of enforced disappearances & revision of existing laws to bring them in line with the international Covenant on Civil &Political Rights & the Convention against Torture & Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Strengthen & ensure independence of national institutions
Develop national reparations policy to international standards
Invite special procedures mandate holders with outstanding requests to make country visits, especially those offering assistance to HRC 19/2
Hold public & inclusive consultations on national plan of action for implementation of recommendations of LLRC with view to revising & expanding scope & clarifying commitments & responsibilities
Revisit & implement LLRC recommendations on appointing special commissioner of investigation into disappearances & extend tracing program
Open proceedings of military courts of inquiry & future trials of LTTE detainees to independent observers to increase public confidence, and allow proceedings to be evaluated in line with international standards
Publish final report of Presidential Commission of Inquiry 2006 to allow evidence gathered to be evaluated & accept international assistance to resolve outstanding cases
Take further steps in demilitarization & devolution to involve minority communities fully in decision-making processes
Engage civil society & minority community representatives in dialogue on appropriate forms of commemoration & memorialization to advance inclusion & reconciliation.
Her report ends for an independent & credible international investigation into alleged violations of international human rights & humanitarian law.
One commentator pointed out that Medicine and Engineering are now gone English as if blood and cement have a language. Unlike medicine and engineering, the law is social engineering and social medicine. This is why Hakeem got an unusual number of law applicants admitted to that one particular year. This is also the reason why Ali Sabri wanted 150 Tamil speaking lawyers in police stations.
Out of the 14 Council of Legal education members, 7 are Ali Sabri’s nominees. This is very unsatisfactory on the face of it. Lawyer Aruna Laksiri Unawatuna in a Lankaweb essay points out that one cannot go to courts about CLE decisions because, CLE is top judges and supporting lawyers, all are black whites.
Cricket is language-blind! Posted on February 4th, 2021
C. Wijeyawickrema, LL.B., Ph.D.
Note: Supreme Court judges are still not willing or not skilled to write their judgements in Sinhala. They have a mental blockade, a Eurocentric fever. So, they want their pupils to learn English. They ignored the 1956 Official Language Act for over 60 years. That is two generations of unfair privileged status! The gazette to go back to English by the council of legal education (CLE) had to wait until a non-Sinhala minister of justice lands as a national list MP. They better be ready with valid reasons to justify their stealth decision when the country gets this bad news.
Previous three essays, this essay and one more to come were written as responses to past attempts made by black-white souls to promote English as panacea for politician-generated problems in Ceylon (Sinhale)/Sri Lanka. The expectation is that CLE members and other Eurocentric NGO agents etc. would get an idea by reading these, what the other side think.
In the selection of teams to represent Sri
Lanka in international cricket, one comes across allegations of bias in
favour of a particular religion and/or cult.
Circumstantial evidence may suggest substance in these
allegations (see ‘Episode 273 Salakuna of Hiru News’).
In the light of these allegations, and to maintain
public confidence, action seems necessary to prevent any possible bias through introduction of proper systems for
selection of:
– the overall governing body
– the panel(s) selectors
– the pools and squads of potential
players
– the final team for a particular match.
It seems unlikely that mere tinkering with systems
will restore any loss of public confidence.
Without
any difference of the government and opposition policies, all prefer foreign
direct investments (FDI) as they positively impact Sri Lanka’s economy. Especially
foreign direct investments play a massive role to improve macroeconomic
variables such as foreign reserves, employment, GDP growth, international
trade, and terms of trade, and many others.
Foreign direct investments are a strong approach to attracting private investors
to economic activities and indirectly, it is a way of privatizing the economy
and promoting the contribution from the private sector.
Delusions
on the privatization policy emerged as a result of the misguided interpretations
of Marxist political parties, today, JVP plays a major role in this arena and
if it analyses the economic policies since the 1930s, it would clear that the
Sri Lanka government preferred private sector participation to economic
activities with the hope that many people to contribute the economic system. Foreign
direct investments are a profitable way of using private capital in the country
and the positive aspect of the participation of private investors in economic
activities is it prevents misuse of capital for anti-social or wishes against
the general public. Delusions on private participation in economic activities
need to be changed if the country wants rapid economic growth and the
distribution of economic benefits to the lower level.
Dr.
Priyath Bandu Wickrama, an excellent port management expert, recently explained
bona fide information about Colombo port management participating in Derana TV
program 360. Dr. Priyath Bandu described why Sri Lanka needs to attract private
capital and such policy makes a positive impact on the economy despite vicious
talks of JVP and leftists. Many trade union members have an idea and the
perspectives of port management and they never attempted to let down the
concept of privatizing port management.
Dr.Priyath Bandu indirectly said that the Port Authority needs to
attract private capital for development purposes and Janatha Vimukthi Preramuna
is groping in dark without properly understanding the issue. JVP had this issue
since its beginning and leaders of the party were not educated by policymakers
as they had a misguided thrust to catch the power of an armed struggle.
Colombo
port has several terminals to develop and they may be East, West, and North
terminals and Sri Lanka’s government has no sufficient funds to invest in these
terminal developments as it has many commitments to diversified fiscal areas.
JVP trade unions which do not represent at least 5% of working people, despite
the true situation, they make big talks and media highlight them reflecting
that JVP is against foreign direct investments, and why this 3% of support from
the entire working class, disadvantage 97% of people in the country? Most
probably, JVP is struggling to regain the political power they had in 2015 or
before, but mythical policies would not be appreciated by learned voters in the
country.
India
also works against foreign direct investments in Sri Lanka, and the objection
may have associated with two vital points. One is direct investment going to
Sri Lanka, India needs to attract them and the second is working against
Chinese investment in the South Indian zone consider would be profitable to
India. Should Sri Lanka suffer from the Indian attitudes? The answer is no. Sri
Lanka is an internationally recognized sovereign state with the power to make
its own decisions.
In
this environment, the only option available to Sri Lanka is attracting foreign
direct investment from Chinese companies and the settlement of Indian debts as
soon as possible. Sri Lanka should appreciate the supports extended by India
and it should not beg from India as it forces Sri Lanka to respect the hegemony
of India. The best action that has been taken by the government against the
Indian hegemony is the settlement of the US $ 400 million swap agreement
accepting a US $ 1500 million swap agreement with China. To successfully
operate Hambantota port, the Colombo port city, and the terminals of Colombo
port, Sri Lanka needs a massive foreign direct investment from Chinese
companies, and as I reiterated the idea since 2014, Sri Lanka needs a currency
swap agreement of US $ 25 billion and improve the rupee value to a higher
level.
Foreign
direct investments in Sri Lanka have limited to a small area and it should be
expanded to regional areas. The productivity and competitiveness improvement of
the rural economy, which comprise agriculture and small industries need
overseas experience that will come with foreign direct investments. As planned by Mr.Gotabaya Rajapaksa, foreign
direct investments play a crucial role for the country, and from the Hambantota
port area to Colombo North, Sri Lanka can allure a trillion of foreign direct
investment if the dilutions on foreign direct investments and privatization
remove from the minds of people.
Sri Lanka has many options to attract direct
foreign investments to make structural changes in the country. The secret of
attracting foreign direct investment is available of projects that could be
delivered direct returns in addition to tax benefits. The weakness of Sri Lanka
is project development for foreigners contribute investments are dearth and the
political authority doesn’t encourage project initiations appealing foreigners
to making investments.
A
vital option for the government to attract foreign direct investment is to
develop a port region (corridor) from the south of Batticoloa to North
Mulaititu. This is a quite large area that could attract a large investment volume
and about five million tourists from East Europe, China, Korea, Japan, and
India. If a tourist spends the US $ 100 during the stay in Sri Lanka, the
region can contribute $ 500 million annually to foreign exchange revenue, and a
large sum of the population could shift from the Western province to this area
making a balance of population distribution.
It
will change the political landscape of the country and people going overseas
for employment especially female migration for domestic services could be massively
restricted and 500000 new employment will be created from service industry such
as health, education, leisure, and others.
The best economic advantage from this port region is the appreciation of
the Sri Lanka rupee by a large scale of foreign exchange earning, and
captivation of a large volume of foreign direct investments.
The
pressure on Colombo and Hambantota ports will ease and many Sri Lankan
employees overseas when they come back to the country could be employed in the
new economic corridor. India might oppose this type of mega-development project
as India wants to gain this type of large investments. From Mulaithiu North to
Batticoloa South needs a toll highway and electric double line rail system and
domestic airport to transfer passengers from Mattala and Katunayake. The South of this economic corridor is closer
to Polonnaruwa, Sigiriya, and Dambulla.
China can extend its foreign investments in this corridor. At least two harbors for international
containers handling in line with the Silk Road and, transshipment purposes could
be established in the area with massive foreign direct investments and another
port could be established for the fishing purpose. This type of development
project would bring a large volume of foreign direct investments and support to
make a strong economic and security association with China. Many garment
factories in the Western province could be relocated in now economic corridor.
During
the past one and half decade, Chinese investment came to Sri Lanka, but Indian
objections were subjected to creeping the investment flow as Sri Lanka’s
government faced to stand between China and India. Under the Non-aligned
policy, Sri Lanka cannot go against India because India is a very good trade
partner, however, Sri Lanka could not be a yes man when India objects to
foreign direct investments from China. How to settle this issue needed to be
considered by foreign policymakers.
President Gotabhaya deserves a bouquet for his new programme Waari
Saubhagya which commenced today(6/2), with the restoration of Mahameegasweva in
the Palugasweva area of the Anuradhapura District.
The restoration of the tanks
in NuwaraKalaviya is an urgent need and it is a great feat to restore the
tanks, the life blood of the people. In fact when I saw the D8 bulldozers-
moving the earth in the tank bed at Mahameegasweva this morning on the
Television, in nostalgia, I happily relived my days in 1963 when as Assistant
Commissioner of Agrarian Services I was in charge of minor irrigation work in
the Anuradhapura District. The Department of Agrarian Services had then taken
over minor irrigation from the Government Agent and I commenced
the restoration of neglected tanks.
Earlier when work was done on
the tanks the work was entrusted to a contractor and generally the earth work
was done with labour- on a piece rate- to dig and place earth on the bund. The
Village Cultivation Officers made the plans, checked by a Cultivation
Superintendent, finalised by a special Technical Assistant loaned from he
Irrigation Department and the staff officer got involved when the last 25% had
to get paid. On my inspections I found that the work done was inadequate and decided
that the newly elected cultivation committees should get some tanks fully
restored with D8 bulldozers. The Cultivation Committes were given the contract.
My decision was resented by the Irrigation Officers but I had my way. I and the
Technical Assistant Soma Jayawardena were present overseeing the D8 machine
moving earth from the tank bed and mounting it onto the bunds when the first
tank was restored, The tank bed was dug to the level of the lower sluice. The
capacity of water held was enormously increased.
However though the farmers and the cultivation committees appreciated what we
did the Village Cultivation Officers who resented my taking away the contracts
from the contractors ganged against me and carried tales to Minister Maitripala
Senanayake whom they knew as the Minister had himself once served as a
Cultivation Officer. I had interdicted almost ten Cultivation Officers for
irregularities by then. The Minister
reported me to our Ministry and I was given an immediate transfer- even
ordered not to enter my office again. A few weeks later Soma Jayawardena, the
Technical Assistant who cooperated with me on my investigations was also given
a punitive transfer to Moneragala. With this move the Agrarian Services attempt
at restoring tanks stopped abruptly. By then I had completed the restoration of
only some four or five tanks.
Later the JVP commenced action to restore tanks when they were in
office for a short period.
Thus the current programme by
our President is a great programme and
with the Army also coming into the scene, I live in hope that a great future
will dawn for the farmers in Nuwara Kalaviya.
The USA Army attends to a very large programme of development work. The
City of New Orleans is below the sea level and the city is saved by levees
built and carefully maintained by the army. When I motored to New Orleans I saw
the Army in action at several places. The US Army is all over the country
attending to development tasks all done in Sri Lanka by our civilian departments. In the Columbia River Basin alone the US Army
has done wonders building hydro electric schemes. These are stupendous
structures the likes of which I have never seen anywhere else. The US Army in its hydro electricity schemes
produce some 44% of the total hydro power produced in the USA. We foreigners think that the US Army is only
used for war. In my travels in the USA I have met them everywhere in the
Columbia River, in Yellowstone and in New Orleans. . Similarly our Army has to be used for
development work and this move of enlisting their services to restore tanks is
a commendable move.
I have in my writings even
suggested that our Army should put up wind turbines and we can save all the
foreign exchange we spend on fuel for producing
electricity. Here our problem is that we are building wind turbines on
the coast, to turn with the mild coastal
breeze, ignoring the shuddering wind power we experience in our mountains. My book: Wind Power for Sri Lanka’s Energy
Requirements, published recently
which proves that we can build wind turbines easily, and can provide all
the power we need within two years has been unfortunately put on the back burner.
Alongside the restoration of
the tanks, the irrigation administration needs to be addressed
immediately. The tanks hold little water today because the tanks have been
neglected in the past few decades. In ancient times the tank maintenance and the administration of water was done by
the Gamsabha, comprising village leaders and the administration was very effective,
The British abolished the Gamsabha and instead the Government Agent attended to
the irrigation administration through a Vel Vidane whom he appointed. This
system got a boost with the enforcement of the Paddy Lands Act and its
cultivation committees- elected bodies that worked with the participation of
the farmers. These cultivation
committees ceased to exist after the abolition of the Paddy Lands Act. This happened in 1978 and since then for the
past five decades there has been no effective irrigation administration. Yaya Palakas have been elected, rather
appointed and there is total chaos which has led to the neglect of
maintaining the tanks as well as the
cultivation of paddy land under the tanks. This has led to the siltation of
tanks, neglect of canals and the lack of systematic cultivation. In 1999 I
wrote:
What struck me most in this
revisit was that the tanks, the life
blood in NuwaraKalaviya has ceased to
exist. Looking at what was left of a
tank I had to imagine that the small trail of earth jutting upwards a few feet
at most was the bund of the tank…
looking at the edges of the tank… one could see encroachments on the upper
reaches… Looking at the Jaya Ganga,
the master piece of engineering, where the gradient is some sections is less
than six inches in a mile, the massive canal that brought the waters of the
Kalaweva to the City tanks of Anuradhapura, it was clear that it too was
neglected with vegetation blocking the flow of water.. A further problem is the
cultivation of tank beds and encroachments,, Non conformists decide to
cultivate the tank bed without authority. The tank bed is full of silt and
gives a bumper crop. With the rains the upper reaches of the tank bed are
tractor ploughed and with the first rains seed is sown. As the tank fills and
the water reaches the illicit cultivation
the illicit cultivator damages the tank bund to save his crop.. Tankbed
cuitivation leads to siltation because
the earth that has been tractor ploughed gets washed to the deeper sections of
the tank bed.”(From: How the IMF Ruined Sri Lanka:Godages)
Thus in the past five decades
there has been total neglect and no proper system of irrigation administration
and unless this is addressed the restored tanks will again get neglected.
Perhaps this may please be addressed by our President. Perhaps Minister Basil
Rajapaksa who is now organizing an
administrative system going down to the village level may please consider looking
into this..
I enclose a Summary of my
book NuwaraKalaviya which has just been published by Godages which tells us of
what is happening in Nuwara Kalaviya today. . .
SUMMARY
I
can understand disasters caused by
natural calamities, but I cannot come to terms with the demise and destruction
of the ancient irrigation tanks and its unique agricultural cultivation system
in Nuwarakalaviya.
The
demise of the irrigation tanks(weirs) began with the abolition of Rajakariya by
the Colebrook and Cameron Reforms of 1833. However the Government Agents and
the Cultivation Committees established
under the Paddy Lands Act organized paddy cultivation and managed the distribution
of irrigation water. When the Paddy Lands Act was abolished the
cultivation committees ceased to exist.
The Yaya Representatives elected under the Agrarian Services Act were
ineffective. This has led to the tanks being neglected, silted up and being
encroached upon
In the meantime The
CDKU-Kidney disease has already caused the death of 40,000 and around a million
are on death row.
A once prosperous
peasantry is lost for ever.
The administrative incompetence that has caused this is unfolded
in these papers. It is indeed a very sad
story, where I too playeda major role.
However all is not lost. The lost administration can be brought
back; the agricultural extension system can be built up, agriculture and agro
industry can develop the economy of Nuwarakalaviya .
May this revelation reach the ears of our leaders.”
From NUWARAKALAVIYA, (Godages: 2020)
President Gotabhaya’s move to
restore 5000 tanks takes care of my concerns in this book and I fervently wish
Waari Saubhagya all success. I look forward to hear of a NuwaraKalaviya Deviyo
sometime in the next four years.
Garvin Karunaratne
Ph.D Michigan State University 1978
SLAS, Assistant Commissioner of Agrarian Services, Anuradhapura
1963/64 & G.A. Matara 1971-73
Author of
How the IMF Ruined Sri Lanka and Alternative Programmes of Success; Godages:
2006
How the IMF Sabotaged Third World Development:Godages/Kindle: 2017
NuwaraKalaviya:Godages:2020
Wind Power for Sri Lanka’s Energy Requirements:
Godages: 2019
Don Philip
Rupasinghe Gunawardene (1901-1972) was born at Boralugoda, Avissawella, in
Hevagam korale. Hewagam Korale, as its
name indicates, had produced many brave hewayo. Philip’s father, Don Jakolis
Rupasinghe Gunawardene was known as ‘Boralugoda Ralahamy’. Boralugoda Ralahamy was
a vidane arachchi.
The
Boralugoda clan was known for their generosity and religious patronage, said
Ananda Meegama. They had strong connections to the Buddhist clergy and the
temples of the area and Philip was brought up in this atmosphere, said Ananda
Meegama.
The family
had deep anti imperialist roots, as well. Philip’s father had been sentenced to
death as a fiery critic of British rule and for fiercely opposing the brutal
repression of Buddhists in 1915, but the family managed to get him off.
Philip first
studied at Siddhartha Vidyalaya, Kaluaggala, built by his father, then at Prince of Wales, Moratuwa. When Ananda
College started to flourish under P de S Kularatne, Philip’s father took Philip
and his brother, Robert out of Prince of Wales and sent them to Ananda. Philip
Gunawardene was ‘an excellent student’ said Kularatne.
Kularatne had
encouraged T.B. Jayah to leave Ananda and take over Zahira College, Colombo.
Since Zahira only had about 24 students at the time, Kularatne had sent a few
Anandians along, to give the new school a good start. Philip Gunawardene was
one of the students sent to Zahira.When he was still a student, he joined the
Young Lanka League, started in 1920.
Philip
entered University College, Colombo in 1921. After one year he left for further
studies to USA. In 1922 Philip enrolled
at the University of Illinois, a state agricultural school. After two years there, he transferred to the
more progressive University of Wisconsin at Madison.
The governor
in Wisconsin, at the time was Robert M. La Follette. Wisconsin under La Follette pioneered much social
welfare legislation. These left a deep impression on Philip and was the
background to his life long commitment to poor rural communities, said Ananda
Meegama.
At Wisconsin
Philip met Jayaprakash Narayan, the
future leader of the Congress Party of India. They discussed politics and read
Marx. They were introduced to members of the Socialist Party of America by another
friend, Avron Landy.
Philip and Narayan
had attended a talk by Scott Nearing, who was on a lecture tour of the American
Midwestern states,to promote his
book ‘How to be a revolutionary’. During the lecture Nearing was interrupted by
Philip and Narayan, who asked many questions. He met them after the lecture,
took a liking to the two enthusiastic students and gave them dinner at a nearby
café where till late, they discussed the issues he had spoken about. He had
then left them, after giving them more of his books.
Scott Nearing (1883 –1983) was a member of the Socialist Party of America and a
prominent figure of the American Left in the 1920s. Nearing had paid a three month visit to China In 1927.
Nearing
taught economics and sociology at University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School
and at Swarthmore College, Pennsylvania. He authored a stream of books on economics and
social problems. Nearing’s aggressive
social activism in the classroom and his writings brought him into conflict
with his employers. He had, for instance, taught a class on the law of social
revolution. University of Pennsylvania dismissed him. This caused much public
concern. In 1973, the University of Pennsylvania formally reversed the
dismissal, by making Nearing an Honorary Emeritus Professor of Economics.
In 1956,
Nearing embarked on a tour which included
Southeast Asia. Philip, then Minister of Agriculture used the opportunity, to invite
Scott Nearing to Sri Lanka. I remember Scott Nearing during that visit, giving
a lecture in the Peradeniya campus to an enthralled crowd, describing the
perils faced by Third World nations, recalled Ananda Meegama. On that visit Philip acknowledged the deep
intellectual influence of Nearing on his own thinking. Philip continued to remember Scott Nearing.
He quoted extensively from Scott Nearing when he was in the Opposition.
In 1925 Philip
transferred to Columbia University in New York. He lodged at International
House in New York. He had worked in a
bookshop whilst studying. US at that time
was enjoying an economic boom. Philip, together with some American friends
started a trading company Ceylon American Trading Company” as the agent for
DJR Gunawardena and Sons”, back in Ceylon. The company dealt in Sri Lanka
produce such as rubber, graphite and desiccated coconut.
Philip also
threw himself into a frenzy of intellectual and political activity in the US,
said Meegama. He spent three years in
New York actively involved in the socialist movement there. He worked together
with two Indian socialists, Seyed Hussain and JC Kumarappa, said Vernon Boteju.
In New York, he
also met the Mexican nationalist Jose Vasconcelos. José Vasconcelos Calderón (1882 –1959) is considered one of the
most influential personalities in the development of modern Mexico. Vasconcelos was in the US because he had joined
the law firm of Warner, John and Galston in Washington,
DC.
Vasconcelos
introduced Philip to the US Branch of the League against Imperialism. Vasconcelos
then decided to return to Mexico City to participate in the ousting of Porfirio
Diaz, President of Mexico. Philip knew
Spanish and he went along with Vasconcelos to Mexico, translating league
pamphlets into Spanish, the language in Mexico.
Philip had
written to his brother that he had come to US ‘for a purpose’, to learn
something of western science, economic power, business organization. Not like those who
went to UK to learn the proper way to match ties and socks. Ceylon will benefit
from my meager knowledge, he said.
Philip’s
biographer, Ananda Meegama says that the US experience made a tremendous impact
on Philip. He had been very receptive to all the new things he saw there. Back
in Sri Lanka, Philip would on many occasions refer to something he had seen in
the US, whether it be new way of handling malaria control, increasing paddy
production or adopting Henry Ford methods of mass manufacture, said Meegama.
American
production potential impressed him and he knew that Sri Lanka had to change
attitudes and adopt new techniques of production and methods of organization
for the country to go forward. Most of all he appreciated American initiative
and enterprise, which he thought was an essential ingredient for Sri Lanka to
prosper.
In 1928
Philip went to London. He first joined the India Freedom League. Then he joined
the Communist Party of Great Britain
(CPGB) where he came under the influence of its leaders, S.D. Saklatvala and
the brothers, Palme Dutt and Clemens Dutt. Saklatvala
(1874-1936) was a Parsi from India. He was MP for Battersea North In 1924, one
of the very few members of Communist Party of
Great Britain to enter Parliament.
Philip rose
quickly in the Party. Sakvatvala and the
other leaders co-opted Philip into the
Colonial Commission of the CPGB. Philip became a trusted courier making
frequent trips to Paris, Brussels and Berlin to deliver party documents to high
communist officials. Philip worked
closely with Saklatvala He took over the Workers Welfare League of
India started by Saklatvala. He was on
the staff of their magazine Daily Worker.
There were
frequent breakups of meetings and Philip’s karate training in his American
student days came in handy, said Meegama. He
became part of a squad of hotheads who were sent to disrupt meetings of
opponents, which meant everyone who disagreed with the Communist line. One more
than one occasion his outbursts led to fist fights, recorded C.W.Ervin.
Philip had
met Narayan again in London in 1929. Narayan had advised Philip, build a
socialist party in Ceylon, but make sure that you educate the young men and
women in the necessity for building a new social order. In London Philip had also worked with the Burmese communities who would
later form the Communist Party in Burma.
Philip was interested
in the anti-imperialist struggle as well. He went to Dublin and wrote for the
Workers Voice, an Irish revolutionary paper.
In London Philip had associated with Jomo Kenyatta, (Kenya) Krishna
Menon, (India) and Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, (Mauritius) later leaders in their
countries. Philip used
to speak at Hyde Park Corner, too.
EW Adikaram
who was then a post graduate student in London attended a meeting at Albert
Hall on self rule to the British colonies. There were three young Asians trying
to force themselves onto the platform. One of them succeeded and made a speech
exposing the evils of the colonial system which extracted the resources of the
colony, the rise of the freedom movement, the imminent downfall of the empire.
Adikaram found word going round that this speaker was a Sri Lankan, Philip
Gunawardena.
Philip
was closely associated with Indian political activity in London. He was
a pioneer member of the India League, founded by Krishna Menon in London. He was sent on missions to Berlin and Paris on behalf of
the Communist Party of India. He was in communication with the Indian
revolutionaries in those cities. He
criticized the Indian moderates of the time, for compromising with Britain. He
included in this category, Gandhi, Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose, said Ananda
Meegama.
Philip was
given important assignments in the ‘League against Imperialism’ and in the
‘Indian Bureau’, a subcommittee that worked with Indian students in the various
universities. Such were his organizing
capabilities that he was sent in 1931 to the London docks to organize Indian
seamen for the Communist Party, observed Meegama.
Philip was so
bold that when the Indian Communist Party was suppressed he held a meeting in
his room in London to form a new Communist Party of India, commented Meegama. Philip
had wanted to go to India himself and a build a new Communist Party in
India. He had discussed this with his
Indian colleagues in London. Scotland Yard and the British government in India
got wind of his plans, and stopped him entering India.
It is amazing
that a Sri Lankan could have exerted so much influence on the Indian national
and political movement in London, said Meegama. This aspect of
Philip is hardly known in Sri Lanka.
Philip also
came under the influence of two Trotskyites, F. Ridley and H Aggarwala, who had
formed the Marxian Propaganda League. Philip attended their meetings and talks
in 1930. Philip was a featured speaker on several occasions as well. Ridley
remembered Philip as a ‘small, active fellow who was a good talker’.
Philip was
taking a risk in associating with this League as they were against the CPGB. Therefore
Philip kept his interest in Trotsky private and started to read Trotsky’s books
in the British Museum library.
In 1931,
Philip went to meet Trotsky, then living in Prinkipo, an island off Turkey, but
was stopped in Bulgaria on the order of the Colonial office. He was taken off the train at Sofia by the
British police.
Undeterred, he then
contacted the French Left in Paris and headed for Spain. He left France from
Perpignan, where he had to abandon the books he had collected for many years. He spent the night at a hotel there. The next
day he went by train to the Pyrenees. He got down before the train reached the
Spanish frontier, probably at Portbau.
Then with map of the frontier in my hands, I
started to climb the mountains, I walked through the vineyards and finally
crossed over to Spain and reached Polia, where the town people fed me,” Philip
wrote to his daughter Lakmali. Philip Gunawardene’s adventurous climb up the
Pyrenees, with neither guide, companion nor preparation has not received sufficient
attention or admiration in Sri Lanka.
Philip then
went on to Barcelona. There he contacted the Spanish Trotskyite group. The main street in Barcelona was quite broad
and had many book stores, Philip recalled to his daughter. After a week in Barcelona, he traveled around
southern Europe and
met Anais Nin, a fixture on
the literary scenes of Paris and a flamboyant personality. The last person
Philip Gunawardene would wish to meet, in my opinion.
In 1932, back in London, Philip countered a
motion brought by Saklatvala in the
League Against Imperialism with an alternate resolution which the members did
not like. they said Philip was a secret Trotskyite and broke with him. He was expelled from party in 1932. They
then tried to discredit him but failed.
Philip had
already cultivated his own following outside the CPGB. His circle included the Indians
who were active in the League Against Imperialism”. Philip was also in touch
with Ceylonese students who were at Cambridge, LSE and University of London. He
had already pulled together a study group which included the very bright
students who would later help him form the LSSP. They included Colvin R de
Silva, at Kings College, Leslie Goonewardene, N.M.Perera and Vernon Gunasekera
at LSE.
NM recalled
that they would meet ‘in dingy digs’ and discuss politics. Philip was their
guru. He introduced them to Trotskyism. V. Karalasingham said that were it not
for Philip these Ceylonese students would never have joined the revolutionary
movement.’
The British
government had watched Philip closely. It had established the Indian Political
Intelligence in 1921, and this maintained a dossier on Philip. They even recorded what he was reading in the British Museum.
While in
London, Philip considered the need for a socialist party for Ceylon. In November 1931 he had drafted a document on
the need for a Communist Party in Ceylon. In the same year Philip had written to SA Wickremasinghe in Ceylon,
saying that he hoped to form Marxist study circles (forum) in Ceylon, by
correspondence, from London. He would
take control of them on his return to Ceylon. He also thought that the existing
Youth League could be transformed into a revolutionary organization with an
iron discipline and crystal clear ideology.
Philip now
wanted to return to Sri Lanka where he felt that he had a much more important
role to play. But there was a problem. In London the British government had
impounded his passport for his anti imperialist and socialist activities. Colombo had declared Philip a dangerous
agitator and he was banned from returning to Sri Lanka.
However, D.B.
Jayatilaka when he became Minister of Home Affairs readily” granted him a passport which
permitted him to return. The British
authorities made sure that Philip did not return in
time for 1931 State Council election.
Philip left
London In 1932, with the Police watching him. He arrived in Ceylon on
November 1 1932. Philip Gunawardene claimed that he was the first informed
socialist to land in Sri Lanka, Wiswa Warnapala said. (continued)
The “New Silk Road” is an enormous Chinese international development project. It’s a trade network that involves Asia, Africa, and Europe — and more than 70 countries are already involved. It may turn the old world order upside down. China is investing in bridges, port facilities, railroads, and roads around the world. Beijing is spending several hundred billion euros on what it calls the “Silk Road Economic Belt.” Chinese President Xi Jinping says the project will provide development opportunities and wealth for China and the entire world. Beijing will take the lead role in building this infrastructure network. After the financial crisis in Greece, no
European country wanted to invest there — but China saw an opportunity, and bought shares in the port of Piraeus. By 2016, Beijing owned a majority of shares. The Greek dockworkers’ union still finds it hard to accept that the port no longer belongs to Greece. In 2019, Italy joined the Silk Road project — and signed a memorandum of understanding with China on development of the port of Trieste. But critics warn that the “Silk Road” project will allow Beijing to spread its influence around the world. Europe is divided between those who favor such cooperation, and those who oppose it. ——————————————————————-
DW Documentary gives you knowledge beyond the headlines. Watch top documentaries from German broadcasters and international production companies. Meet intriguing people, travel to distant lands, get a look behind the complexities of daily life and build a deeper understanding of current affairs and global events. Subscribe and explore the world around you with DW Documentary.
The
73rd Anniversary of Independence of Sri Lanka was celebrated on
4 February at the Embassy of Sri Lanka in Washington D.C., with the
participation of religious dignitaries, representatives from the US State
Department and the Embassy Staff, with the Sri Lankan community and friends of
Sri Lanka across the US joining virtually in view of the prevailing pandemic
related restrictions.
The ceremony commenced with the hoisting of the national flag by Ambassador
Ravinatha Aryasinha, amidst the chanting of seth pirith by the Venerable Maha
Sangha. The National Anthem of Sri Lanka was sung followed by the observance of
two-minutes silence in remembrance of heroes who sacrificed their lives to
preserve and protect the freedom, unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity
of the motherland. Following the lighting of the traditional oil lamp, the Maha
Sangha and members of the clergy belonging to Hindu, Islam and Christian faiths
conducted religious observances.
Conducting Buddhist Religious observances, the Most Venarable Katugastota
Uparatana Thero, Chief Priest of the Maryland Buddhist Vihara and Chief
Sanganayake of North America, observed Pansil, and the Most Venerable Dr.
Aggamaha Panditha Walpola Piyananda Nayake thero of the Los Angeles Buddhist
Vihara invoked blessing, followed by the chanting of Seth Pirith by all priests
who joinined virtually. Swami Ragupathi Kurukkal observed Hindu religious
observances and blessed with a recital of Hindu prayers. Rev. Father Dilantha
Arachchilage of the Hope Community Church in Arlington conducted Christian
prayers and offered blessings. Mr Seyed Rizwan Mowlana, representing the Islam
faith, recited verses from the holy Quran and invoked blessings for the country
for peace and harmony.
The Independence Day Messages of H.E. the President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Hon.
Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and Hon. Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena
were read out by the staff of the Mission in Sinhala, Tamil and English.
Mr. Dean Thompson, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South and Central
Asian Affairs of the US Department of State who attended the ceremony as the
Guest of Honor, in remarks, said he appreciated very much the inclusion of
religious observances from the Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic and Christian faiths,
as well as the reading of the Independence Day messages in the three languages,
which is a reminder that this island nation is made stronger by its diversity.
He observed that since Sri Lanka’s independence 73 years ago, Sri Lanka and the
United States have been partners in development, drawn together by a shared
commitment to protect and promote democracy, human rights, the rule of law and
equal justice for all. Noting that the US looks forward to partnering with and
supporting the Sri Lankan people as they address challenges, realize the
nation’s true potential and draw strength from their diversity, Mr. Thompson
said the two countries have many shared values and interests, including
fostering economic growth, countering violent extremism, strengthening people
to people ties and ensuring a free and open Indo-Pacific region where all
countries can prosper.
In his address to mark the occasion, Ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha extended
his appreciation for all who joined the independence celebrations – physically,
as well as mainly virtually. The Ambassador who detailed the Sri Lanka
government’s priorities at present, and several dimensions of the Sri Lanka –
US partnership, recalled President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s recent congratulatory
message to US President Joe Biden, where he assured that Sri Lanka, under my
leadership, based on the mandate received from my people, is committed to
further strengthen and consolidate this multifaceted partnership with the
United States, grounded in mutual respect, shared values and common interests”.
Referring to the key initiatives undertaken by the new Government to address
the Sri Lanka’s economic and national security challenges, to strengthen
reconciliation, and to promote and protect human rights through domestic
mechanisms, Ambassador Aryasinha urged that all pay heed to the facts, without
being misled, and recognize the difficult tasks the government of Sri Lanka has
embarked upon in a short time notwithstanding grappling with a pandemic that
has crippled most of the world. He urged that all work towards unity and
development, so that Sri Lanka will prosper and Sri Lanka – US friendship will
grow.
Ambassador Aryasinha who noted that on 31 January the Embassy took an ambitious
step in launching the ‘Pan-US Overseas Sri Lankans (OSL) Network’, aimed at
supporting OSL activities and to leverage their support towards realizing the
interests of Sri Lanka in the US, said the core areas of focus of this
Network will be – advocacy of Sri Lanka, economic advancement and
socio-cultural engagement. Observing that he was encouraged to see the
participation of OSLs from 27 States across the US and their commitment towards
this new initiative, he said, the Embassy is in the process of expanding this
‘network’ to cover all States in the US. It will also be developing ‘nodal
clusters’ across each State, in order to bring together OSLs to work
collectively on the areas of focus identified. This network will also have
overarching ‘interest clusters’ – including to engage with OSL
entrepreneurs, youth, and academics, as well as to reach out to non-Sri Lankan
‘Friends of Sri Lanka’ throughout the USA. He was hopeful that this network
will be a powerful vehicle in serving the interests of the OSLs in the US,
keeping them connected with their motherland, and in ensuring that they become
‘catalysts’ in taking the US-Sri Lanka relationship to greater heights.
Ambassador Aryasinha urged the support of the State Department, to engage the
totality of the US based OSLs, so that they become a strength to both their
host country, as well as to their home country.
The ceremony came to a close with the serving of traditional milk rice and Sri
Lankan sweetmeats to those present.
Embassy of Sri Lanka
Washington, DC
04 February 2021
Colombo, February 7 (newsin.asia): Indian sources acknowledged on Sunday that India has expressed its strong” concern about the location of three Chinese renewal energy projects in Sri Lanka’s Northern Province barely 48 km from Rameswaram in Tamil Nadu.
The sources said that the projects were security a threat to India which is just across the narrow Palk Strait.
The local media had reported that the three renewable energy projects are to be located in Delft, Analativu and Nainativu, which are islands off the coast of Jaffna in North Sri Lanka. The projects had been approved by the Lankan Cabinet on January 18.
The energy project’s local partner, the Ceylon Electricity Board, had entered into a joint venture with MS/Sinosar-Etechwin of China. Funds for the US$ 12 million project are to come from the Asian Development Bank. The award to the Chinese company was recommended by the Cabinet-Appointed Standing Committee on Procurement.
International competitive bids were called to install hybrid renewable energy systems in the three islands utilizing accessible energy resources to improve the efficiency of the prevailing energy network. Sri Lankan sources said that the location were chosen as the Governor of the Northern Province Ms.P.S.M.Charles had been pressing for power projects due to the energy shortage in her war-devastated domain.
Sri Lankan government told the Indians that the Indian company which bid for the project did not submit a competitive proposal and that the bid were evaluated by the ADB independently of the Sri Lankan government.
Colombo asked India to submit competitive proposals and added that its companies could bid for other projects in the Northern Province.
But India’s concern was strategic and its security against Chinese snooping. Sri Lankan authorities however say that India should not cite security” as a reason for blocking Sri Lanka’s projects beyond reasonable limits as doing so infringes Sri Lanka’s sovereignty.
Sri Lanka’s confirmed COVID-19 infections count crossed the 69,000-mark (February 07) as 410 more persons were tested positive for the virus.
Accordingly, Sri Lanka has reported a daily total of 772 cases today.
Following the new development, total COVID-19 cases confirmed in the country have soared to 69,348.
According to the Epidemiology Unit, more persons who were previously infected with the virus were discharged from hospitals today upon returning to health, thereby, the country’s recoveries count has reached 63,401.
In the meantime, 5,596 active cases are still under medical care at multiple hospitals and treatment centres.
The death toll from the virus outbreak meanwhile stands at 351.
To understand
contemporary national politics and its complex combinations and permutations it
is imperative that any student of politics must first get a firm grasp of the
two political cultures that divides the North and the South. The gap is much
wider than the Palk Straits that separates us from India, thankfully. For
instance, the Tamils have never tasted equality, dignity, liberty, justice and
peace under any of the Tamil rulers starting from the time of Sankili who went
down to Mannar and massacred 600 innocent Tamil Catholics on the eve of
Christmas 1544 to Velupillai Prabhakaran (2009) who massacred 600 Sri Lankan
policemen who surrendered to him. The Tamils got their first taste of these
cherished liberal values only under what they called the Sinhala state”, or
Sinhala-dominated state” – two terms used interchangeably to label it as a
racist state.
From the time
of the rise of oriental despotic rulers in the 14th century in
Jaffna – Marx defined Asiatic kings who had centralised control of water in
hydraulic societies as despotic rulers” — and the subsequent rise of Vellala
sub-rulers under the Portuguese, Dutch and British colonial masters, to the
final rise of Prabhakaran, the average, grassroot Jaffna Tamil (I am
excluding the Vellalas, the oppressive subalterns of the colonial rulers)
never had the political or social space to experience dignity, equality,
liberty, justice and peace in Jaffna. The Dutch who legalised slavery in
1707 by codifying the customary law in the Tesawalamai, with
the consent and advice of the Vellala mudliyars, laid the legal foundation for
the exploitation of the Tamils as slaves. The Vellalas treated slaves as
subhuman pariahs. The rest, of course, is the history of Tamil tyranny that
denied Tamils their basic rights to be human. In some cases, they were even
refused the right to walk like all other human beings in the sunlight in case
the low-caste despicables polluted the pure eyes of the Vellalas. The last
mission of even distinguished Sir. Ponnambalam Ramanathan was to the Colonial
Office in London in the late twenties (he died in November 26, 1930) to lobby
the colonial masters to preserve and enforce Vellala casteism as a means of
maintaining law and order.
The classic
characteristics of a Jaffna Tamil despotic ruler was demonstrated amply in
our time by Velupillai Prabhakaran – the Thalaivar” (leader) who
forcibly abducted under-aged Tamil children to fight in his futile war. He
fought a brutal war committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Nevertheless, Tamils have no qualms about hailing him as their hero though they
know that he has killed more Tamils than any other force. He began
his war by first decimating the Tamils at the top layer. His first victim was
mild-mannered, gentle Alfred Duraiyappah, the Mayor of Jaffna, and the best of
the Tamil leadership and ended by killing the innocent Tamils at the lower
level – i.e., the mass of Tamils who were fleeing from him into the safe hands
of the Security Forces in the final days of the LTTE. Prabhakaran’s greatest
achievement was in refining the killing machine of the Tamils into one of the
deadliest weapons in the 33-year-old war.
In the 20th-21
centuries Prabhakaran’s Pol Potist regime demonstrated convincingly that he had
inherited the traditional and incurable Tamil despotism from his tyrannical
ancestors. In every step he took he displayed his inability to use power for
the good of the Tamil people. President Chandrika Kumaratunga offered him all
the power he needs to rule the North and East without elections for ten
years. Ranil Wickremesinghe offered him practically all what he wanted with
international guarantees. Rajiv Gandhi offered him the Chief Ministership. He
rejected them all. His ambition to be the sole representative of the
Tamils was a pathological obsession with him. Together with his ingrained
intransigence, he was bent on using power to glorify himself and not the people
whom he promised to liberate.
The eventual
cause that led to his fall was his failure to understand how to use power even
to save himself. He knew how to enforce brutal power but not to govern
democratically or peacefully. He knew how to kill Tamils but not to save them.
He had all the chances and the power to end the blood-letting in the last
stages. But he insisted on fighting knowing the human cost, particularly to the
helpless Tamils sandwiched in between the retreating Tigers and the advancing
Security Forces. He knew and relied only one methodology : terror. If he won he
could have maintained his grip on power only through brutal force because he
neither had the mental makeup nor the skills and the capacity to govern
as a democratic leader. Prabhakaran relied and survived, like his predecessors,
essentially on fascist terror. Tamil leaders have proved from the
beginning that they cannot be trusted with power to deliver their
own people with even a modicum of dignity, equality, justice and peace.
Prabhakaran ran
a quasi-state with an army, navy, air force, police and courts but he never
gave them any dignity, justice, equality, liberty or peace. Dissident Tamils
and those who were perceived to be a threat to the Tamil state were hunted and
killed. Those who survived had to find refuge either abroad or in the
Sinhala state” they had vilified. Douglas Devananda, the leader of the EPDP,
was one of the lucky ones who survived 13 successive attacks on him.
Clearly, the available evidence points to the undeniable fact that
the Tamils are not fit to rule themselves, though they clamour for
a separate state. Their history of running states in feudal and modern
periods have proved that they were not motivated by the ideals of giving
their people dignity, liberty, equality, justice and peace. Their sole objective
has been to acquire power and use it to keep their own people under the heel of
the ruling elite with brutal force.
Prabhakaran was
driven, slowly but surely, to his self-made end by his increasing
arrogance, intransigence and ignorance. He dug his own grave in believing that
he was invincible. Tamil triumphalism reached stratospheric heights with each
killing or massacre perpetrated by Prabhakaran. They believed that every death
of a Sinhalese – or even a dissident Tamil — was another step forward towards
Eelam. As recorded in the Yalpana Vaipave Malai the Tamil
regimes have survived on mass massacres of Tamils, ethnic cleansing of Muslim
and Sinhalese minorities, legalised slavery of imported Malabaris and brutal
fascist force. Ethnic cleansing and mass massacres entered the history books
for the first time through Tamil tyranny.
So, when the
Indian government presses the GOSL to grant dignity to the Tamils etc.,
they have to go for a reality check and consider seriously whether there is any
justification in their demand. It is time that the South Bloc in Delhi learnt
some Sri Lankan history before writing press communiques to their Foreign
Minister. The latest press communique reveals that they do not know the
basics of SL politics. Their foreign policy is based on the political pap
fed to them by the Tamil lobby. Besides,
inter-state diplomatic manoeuvres cannot resolve complex differences, or
maintain harmonious relations if the dominant party seeks to dictate
terms on the lies of one single community bent on achieving their
aspirations” at the expense of all other communities. In any
case, it is superfluous for India to preach to Sri Lanka on how to treat its
minorities when the minorities have been given the highest degree of
recognition, respect, and dignity only in the 73-years of independence.
No Tamil
migrant in the diaspora can boast of a place higher than what they had and have
in Sri Lanka. Which Tamil can boast of a star representing them in the
American flag? Which English currency will recognise Tamil as an official
language? Why do Tamil undergraduates pay for their degree abroad –
including Tamil Nadu, the only homeland of Tamils — while the Tamils in
Sri Lanka get free education from kinder to uni? The Tamils of the estates, as
elsewhere, get the best of medical treatment free in Nuwara Eliya public
hospital in the Tamil language (I was once a patient in it) which no Tamil in
America and Australia can get. Donald Trump and the Republican have been raving
and ranting against free medical and educational facilities even for the
Americans, let alone the Mexicans and the Asians.
So, the Indian
government has to specify, instead of repeating the propaganda of the Tamil
lobby, in what respects the Tamils of Jaffna have been denied dignity,
equality, peace and justice. Has the GOSL been unable and unwilling to go along
with India too to satisfy the grievances” and aspirations” of the
Tamils? Didn’t they sign the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord to satisfy India’s
grievances” and aspirations” too in addition to those of the Tamils?
Besides, at the end of the day, the GOSL has to sell to the Sri Lankans the
demands of India to find a final solution. GOSL has to tell the Sri
Lankans that we have to give the Tamils what they demand because of this, this
and this. In doing so the Indian government also must evaluate how the Tamil
state of Prabhakaran and the previous regimes delivered dignity, equality,
peace and justice to the Tamil people and prove that the Tamils were
better off under their Tamil regimes than under the Sinhala state”. The
Indian government must prove to the Sri Lankan people that Sri Lanka has (1)
treated the Tamils worse than Prabhakaran’s state and (2) that the GOSL has
denied the Tamils their dignity, equality, peace and justice which they had
under Tamil regimes. It is in the interests of India to give a valid rationale
on the basis of the treatment received by the Tamils at the hands of the GOSL
and any Tamil state that had given the Tamils a better deal than the GOSL.
The historic
switch to liberal politics from semi-feudal, semi-capitalist, fully-fledged
colonial period took place in the third decade of the 20th century.
It was the decade that Ceylon, as it was known then, was granted
universal franchise. It was the first path-breaking step in the
modernising and democratisation of Sri Lankan political landscape.
After that it was one leap after another into the evolution of
constitutions, economic reforms, revision of antiquated laws and creation
of new bureaucratic structures to build one of the best democratic
welfare states in the developing world. The resilience of the
elected state to withstand the demonic and the destructive forces that
assaulted the democratic centre is in itself a remarkable achievement. The
Sinhala state” even fought their longest war within a democratic framework. The
Tamils fought with the advantage of waging a war led by a Tamil tyrant who was
unrestrained by democratic norms – and lost. The absolute obscenity of Tamil
political culture is that they not only denied religious freedom to others they
even denied religious freedom to their own Hindus to worship their common
God/gods inside Hindu kovils. That is intolerance and dehumanising Vellala
supremacy at its abominable height.
Herein lies the
fundamental difference between the two political cultures of the North and the
South. The South has been open, liberal and democratic. The North closed it
cadjan curtain to keep the outside world out and to rule it with the
iron-fisted ideology of Vellala supremacy. The South welcomed and
embraced practically all the new waves and cults that were sweeping the
globe – from Marxism to born again Christian cults and religious extremists
linked to Wahabists, Hussein, and Gaddaffi. With all its imperfections the
Southern institutions maintained the essence of democratic and liberal
values that respected and gave dignity and space to multi-cultural,
multi-ethnic entities. The North was fiercely committed to mono-ethnic,
mono-cultural supremacy in the name of minority rights. The South was the
home base which baked the cake for all multi-ethnic talent to shine abroad, as
stated famously by Lakshman Kadiragamar, the brilliant Tamil liberal who was
brutally killed by the Tamil Pol Pot. In contrast to him, the other Tamil
leader, S. J. V. Chelvanayakam, refused to buy a house in Colombo fearing that
his children will be corrupted by the open, liberal and cosmopolitan culture of
the South which produced the best of Tamils, from Kadiragamar to Neelan Tiruchelvam.
He bought an estate in the hills not to protect and promote the welfare of the
Indian Tamils but to exploit them for his profit. Jane Russell in her study of
communalism (Communalism Under the Donoughmore Constitution – 1931 – 47)
described this condition as the peninsularity of the Jaffna mind” (p.
8). The Tamils came down and colonised the South as government servants
(example: Wellawattam), professionals, businessmen and generally made it
the base to extract the maximum for their benefit. As the old adage goes,
the Jaffna Tamil son shone in Colombo while the father gathered the harvest in
the North!
While
protecting, defending and developing the core values of the majority the
Sinhala-Buddhist bourgeoisie, the driving force of the nation, either
corrected after making the initial mistakes or worked jointly with all
communities to maintain a fine political balance to regain and restore
harmony in inter-ethnic relations. Maintaining that fine balance was the
prime necessity in the post-colonial era. There were, of course, some
missteps that could have been handled differently. But the ambience for
political reconciliation was worsened by the lumpen Marxists, partisan
intellectuals hired by the NGOs, and extreme communalists whose counter-productive
and disruptive politics threatened to destabilise and reduce Sri Lanka into a
failed nation. As against these forces, the resilience of the
Sinhala-Buddhist bourgeoisie to recover, rise and stabilise the nation from
time to time has been a remarkable feat. The latest was the historic electoral
victories of the two Rajapaksa brothers. In the end the major inter-ethnic
issues have been contained (temporarily) to a tolerable level. It is the
minorities who ran berserk with violence that paid the highest price for their
blood-thirsty politics.
The
creative, innovative, resilient, and revolutionary achievements of the
Sinhala-Buddhist bourgeoisie are themes for future sociological
researches to explore for post-graduates aspiring to add Ph Ds to the tail-end
of their names. They will discover that from international cricket to
winning unwinnable wars the record has been glorious. But the greatest of
them all is in maintaining a democratic welfare state against all
adversities. The victory belongs to the vilified and demonised
the Sinhala-Buddhist bourgeoisie.
The Marxists,
the NGOs, the hired hacks in academia riding in the bandwagon of NGOs, and the
Tamil lobbies have been in the forefront of demonising the
Sinhala-Buddhist bourgeoisie as chauvinists”, racists”, majoritarianists’,
reactionaries”, or with slogans coined by the Marxists like Dudley-gay
bud-day masala-vadai”, etc. The Marxist intellectuals and their political
allies who led the front against the Sinhala-Buddhist bourgeoisie
failed to move the masses with their revolutionary theories the way
Sinhala-Buddhist bourgeoisie moved the nation to create non-violent social
revolutions on historic scales. No single Marxists could draw the milling
crowds that lined up day and night for Dudley Senanayake lying in state. Though
the Marxists demonised the Sinhala-Buddhist bourgeoisie the irony is that
they ended up in the embracing the very forces they hated and vilified. Where
does this leave the Kumari Jayawardenas, Jayadeva Uyangodas, the odd ball
Kumar David and our political scientist Dayan Jayatilleke? Those who could
march with armed Dharmapalas” could swing the nation to act as a
monolithic force while those who worshipped Gramsci and Che Guevara
have to creep into the bourgeois camps to find their daily bread
and some butter.
President
Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s Independence Day speech assumes an in-depth meaning and a
great political significance in the background of the last two election
which signifies the rise of the new Sinhala-Buddhist bourgeoisie who were in
the forefront of the political campaigns. These two elections mark the
powerful rise of the Sinhala-Buddhists once against under the leadership of the
Rajapaksas. President Gotabaya Rajapakse defined it precisely and neatly when
he reminded the nation: I am a
Sinhala-Buddhist leader and I will never hesitate to state so. I govern this
country according to Buddhist teachings. Within the Buddhist philosophic
tradition of peaceful coexistence which gives the respect to all religions and
ethnicities, every person in this country irrespective of their ethnic or
religious identification has the right to enjoy the freedom as equals under
the nation’s legal framework.”
These are
resounding words that goes deep into the heart and soul of the
Sinhala-Buddhists. These are bold and daring statements which no other head of
state had made before. Though every single Sinhala-Buddhist leader knew that he
was the representative of the Sinhala-Buddhists no one dared to claim
that title, fearing that it would alienate the minorities. The odd thing in Sri
Lankan politics is that every other minority entity had the right to come
out in the name of their ethnic community except the Sinhala-Buddhists.
Not even S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike, the leader who spearheaded the first
nationalist wave in 1956, ever dared to claim to be the leader of the
Sinhala-Buddhists though he headed the Sinhala Maha Sabha.
The Rajapaksas
came at a time when the Sinhala-Buddhists had no leader. The Tamils had India
to fall back and the Diaspora manipulating the West. The Muslims boasted that
they had the whole of the Arabic bloc to back them. The majority had Sinhala
leaders who went to Geneva, joined hands with the West, and moved
resolutions against the nation, agreeing to roast the Sinhala-Buddhist soldiers
who fought and liberated the Tamils from their fascist tyrant. It is the
alienated, isolated, deserted and humiliated Sinhala-Buddhists who rallied
behind the Rajapaksas and President Gotabaya paid his due respects to the
Sinhala-Buddhists who trusted him and elected him. But he went out of the
way to emphasize that he was also the President who would protect the
minorities and their rights as framed in the constitution. In other
words, he was not going to abandon the Asokan ideal of a Buddhist state
which is to make the land fit for all”, as stated in the Mahavamsa.
That is from
the domestic angle. There is a foreign dimension to it also. President’s speech
is also a studied and guarded response to India’s demand that the Tamil should
be treated with dignity, equality, justice and peace. Read as a whole he
is telling India that it has been the Sinhala-Buddhist tradition to protect the
rights of the minorities. What he said about the minorities needs repeating. He
said : Within the Buddhist philosophic tradition of peaceful coexistence
which gives the respect to all religions and ethnicities, every person in this
country irrespective of their ethnic or religious identification has the right
to enjoy the freedom as equals under the nation’s legal framework.”
In other words, he was telling India, quite diplomatically, don’t come to
teach grandmothers how to suck eggs. He is saying that we have been
giving protection to the persecuted minorities throughout our history and we
are not going to deviate now.
He also took a
swipe at the traitors” in the opposition. He pinpointed the traitorous
elements (who) always band together and seek to marshal domestic and
foreign forces against the leadership that upholds the indigenous way of
life and the country’s sovereignty.” True to his past record, the failed
leader of these forces, Ranil Wickremesinghe, did not attend
the Independence Day parade. He attends it only when he is holding high office
to bask in the power and glory of state ceremonies. So, he went out of his way
to hold his own Independence Day ceremony. He went to garland the statue
of grand old D. S. Senanayake, the Father of the Nation.
This is where
things went wrong for him, according to some Right-wing cynics. When he
was about to garland the statue DS” had stopped him. Shocked by this Ranil
nearly fell off the ladder.
Then wagging a
finger DS” asked him: Did I get independence for you to go to Geneva and
betray the nation and the soldiers who fought to save the nation?”
Ranil was
flummoxed. He didn’t’ have a ready answer. In his confusion he had stuttered,
according to UNP sources, and mumbled: I didn’t go to Geneva. I must
find out who did it. I will appoint a committee and let you know the
answer when I come next time.”
A man is not called wise because he talks and talks again;
but is he peaceful, loving and fearless then he is in truth called wise. Even
as a solid rock is unshaken by the wind, so are the wise unshaken by praise or
blame – Buddha
It appears that
labelling oneself as a Sinhala Buddhist and the country as a Sinhala Buddhist Nation
is the national ethos while saying or implying that all others in the country
are accommodated in the island because of the generosity of this national ethos.
The purpose in writing
this article is with the hope that it will generate some amount of
contemplation and discussion as to who a Sinhalese is and who a Buddhist is,
and perhaps who they should be. A question worth pondering is whether an outer
garment matters more than the inner self of the person wearing that garment.
Historically, culturally
and demographically, Sri Lanka has deep seated roots in it being predominantly
of Sinhala Buddhist composition. There is no doubt that the Sinhala Buddhist
orientation dominates the cultural ethos in the country.
Prior to the advent of
the Sinhala race as believed and chronicled by the Mahavamsa itself, there were
other human beings inhabiting the island when Prince Vijaya set foot in the
country. If the Mahavamsa account is correct, they were not Sinhala people as
Vijaya and his retinue is credited for the beginning of the Sinhala race.
The Sinhala race that Vijaya’s
retinue began were mixed from the outset, as they produced their progeny with
females who then inhabited the island and who were not Sinhala women. There is
no record that Vijaya brought females from where he came.
Besides the then
inhabitants not being Sinhala, neither were they, nor Vijaya and his retinue,
Buddhist as Buddhism had not arrived in Sri Lanka then.
So, the conclusion one
can derive, assuming the Mahavamsa account is correct, is that the Sinhala race
began after Vijaya and his retinue, who were not Sinhala people when they
arrived but Bengali’s from Sinhapura, set foot in the island, settled in with
the locals and produced the progeny who then were called Sinhalese. Interestingly,
it is recorded in the Mahavamsa that Prince Vijaya in fact married a princess
from India and they had no children, although it is also recorded there that he
had two children with Kuveni, but they had apparently perished without trace.
Given these accounts
from the Great Chronicle, the Mahavamsa, mostly folklore, it is interesting to
note the origins, at least genetically, of the Sinhalese people.
The Wikipedia states
that quote, All studies agree that there is a significant relationship between
the Sinhalese and the Bengalis and South Indian Tamils and that there is a
significant genetic relationship between Sri Lankan Tamils and Sinhalese, them
being closer to each other than other South Asian populations. This is also
supported by a genetic distance study, which showed low differences in genetic
distance between the Sinhalese and the Bengali, Tamil, and Keralite volunteers. The Up Country Sinhalese
(mountainous region) and Low Country Sinhalese have different genetic
phenotypes according to observations, with the up country Sinhalese looking
slightly more Caucasoid, compared to the low country Sinhalese, who’s castes
are known to have origins in South India, although no formal study has been
conducted on such matters. The vast genetic diversity of the Sinhalese has
intrigued anthropologists on their genetic origins”, unquote
While there are many studies done on the genetic mix of the Sinhala race, the following perhaps is generally representative of historical mix and consistent with historical records of migrations into the island.
From these accounts, other research
materials, and subsequent events, it does appear that the Sinhala race is a
mixed race with genetic inclusions from many other races. This is not to say
other races have genetic purity and a single genetic source. Most if not all races
in the world, particularly where movement of people from one area to another
and from one habitation to another occurred, there was mixing of races and
todays genetic research technology easily identifies genetic mixing in
individuals.
The
genetic mix of the Sinhala race makes them perfect candidates in a contemporary
sense to show a greater understanding and accommodating of other races whose very
genetic origins reside in them, and as Aristotle said, begin believing that the
whole is greater than the sum of all parts.
Sinhala
people are a spontaneously generous, kind and unselfish people. It is worth
pondering whether this is still the case in a general sense or whether or not
there has been a shift away from these noble characteristics, and towards a
more inward looking, less tolerant race, and if so, what or who has influenced
such a shift.
Sinhalese
and Buddhism
The
Mahavamsa again records how the Sinhala race had protected Buddhism whenever
there was a threat to Buddhism. Many Buddhist also go by the belief that Buddha
himself had stated that Buddhism will thrive in Sri Lanka and it will be
protected by the Sinhala people. It is unclear how Buddha could have said this
as the Mahavamsa also reportedly records that Buddha passed away the day Vijaya
arrived in Sri Lanka. The Sinhala race had not begun then for him to make that
prediction although the proponents of this story also say that Buddha had the supreme
mental ability to make such predictions. Such an ability would liken him to a
God, and Buddha was emphatic at all times that he was a human being. If indeed
Buddha had said that the inhabitants of the island would protect Buddhism,
then, that would have made more sense as it would have included all other races
in Sri Lanka.
The
question also arises as to how Buddhism could be protected and whether one is
talking about the Dhamma or the Buddhist Institution.
Ven Bhikkhu Thittila in the February 1958
issue off the Magazine
the Atlantic (The Meaning of Buddhism-Fundamental principles of
the Theravada doctrine) offers this view about the teachings of Buddha All the
teachings of the Buddha can be summed up in one word: Dhamma. It means truth,
that which really is. It also means law, the law which exists in a man’s own
heart and mind. It is the principle of righteousness. Therefore, the Buddha
appeals to man to be noble, pure, and charitable not in order to please any
Supreme Deity, but in order to be true to the highest in himself. Dhamma, this
law of righteousness, exists not only in a man’s heart and mind, it exists in
the universe also. All the universe is an embodiment and revelation of Dhamma.
When the moon rises and sets, the rains come, the crops grow, the seasons
change, it, is because of Dhamma, for Dhamma is the law of the universe which
makes matter act in the ways revealed by our studies of natural science”.
Ven
Bhikkhu Thittila states further that the teaching
founded by the Buddha is known, in English, as Buddhism. It may be asked, who
is the Buddha? A Buddha is one who has attained Bodhi; and by Bodhi is meant
wisdom, an ideal state of intellectual and ethical perfection which can be
achieved by man through purely human means. The term Buddha literally means
enlightened one, a knower”
If
one is to call oneself a Buddhist, surely there cannot be an argument that
Buddhism is or should be about the Dhamma and about what is in one’s mind. It
is oxymoronic to associate the Dhamma with the institution as an institution
cannot protect what is in a person’s mind. It is the Dhamma itself, and living
by the tenants of the Dhamma that one can protect one’s mind, and therefore the
Dhamma.
As Bhikkhu Thittila say
further this doctrine finds its highest expression in metta, the
Buddhist goal of universal and all-embracing love. Metta means much
more than brotherly feeling or kind-heartedness, though these are part of it.
It is active benevolence, a love which is expressed and fulfilled in active
ministry for the uplifting of fellow beings. Metta goes hand in hand
with helpfulness and a willingness to forego self-interest in order to promote
the welfare and happiness of mankind. It is metta which in Buddhism
is the basis for social progress. Metta is, finally, the broadest and
intensest conceivable degree of sympathy, expressed in the throes of suffering
and change. The true Buddhist does his best to exercise metta toward
every living being and identifies himself with all, making no distinctions
whatsoever with regard to caste, colour, class, or sex”.
It is perhaps timely to
reflect on the nature and characteristics of who a Sinhala Buddhist is and
perhaps should be. Do they live by the Dhamma and do they practice Metta? Can
the Dhamma be protected by the Buddhist Institution in Sri Lanka? Or is the
institution a determinant of the political fortunes of individuals and
political parties and the notion that Buddhism needs protection, a strategic
survival ploy of the Institution? Is this a symbiotic relationship that has
mutual benefits?
History and the environment
has created an identity called a Sinhala Buddhist as no one is that at birth.
That identity could learn to live by the Dhamma or live by institutional
dictates. It is no doubt a huge challenge for any individual as the environment
pushes one towards the institution and away from the Dhamma. The institution
fosters the opposite of Dhamma as the Dhamma is a threat to the institution.
This challenge becomes even greater when national political leaders espouse the
cause of Buddhist institutions, and foster and promote the display of the outer
garments and not govern to strengthen the inner selves of the people.
On 27 January 2021, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a report on behalf of the Commissioner, titled ‘Promotion [of] Reconciliation, Accountability and Human Rights in Sri Lanka.’ As we can typically see from recent activities of this Office, the report is more of a political report than a human-rights one.
A credible human rights report should be unbiased and objective, focusing on human rights and human rights violations of the people without dragging on political matters or preferences. The purpose of such a report for the Human Rights Council should be to enlighten the member countries about the facts and evidence of the past or the present to engage in a constructive dialogue with the country concerned, and recommending necessary steps to promote human rights, reconciliation, and accountability.
Especially of a country where extremism and terrorism have been recurrent problems, such reports should particularly be careful not to give excuses (uda geddi) directly or indirectly for such movements to reemerge.
It is not clear who has written this report, although some pretends it was written by the Commissioner herself. Of course, she should take the responsibility. It would have been better on the part of the Office, in the name of transparency, if the author/s have been revealed. Then the Commissioner could have been excused.
The Focus
There is a clear focus in the Report on the year 2020 where a new government was elected by the people overwhelmingly right or wrong. Criticizing such a government is primarily a matter for the people in the country and is a political matter even for outsiders. Even in the Summary itself it says,
The High Commissioner is deeply concerned by the trends emerging over the past year, which may represent early warning signs of a deteriorating human rights situation. The report highlights that developments over the past year have fundamentally changed the environment for advancing reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka, eroded democratic checks and balances and civic space, and reprised a dangerous exclusionary and majoritarian discourse.”
There is no mentioning of the terrorist attacks in April 2019 or the government crisis in October 2019 (to say the least) which in fact marked the deteriorating security and human rights situation in the country. It appears that the human rights ‘advocates’ at the Commissioner’s Office do not accept that peoples’ security in a country (let alone national security) is a necessary condition for the protection and promotion of human rights. This is a fundamental defect in the ‘Western’ thinking of human rights to my experience and knowledge on the subject.
It may be the case that the Commissioner’s Office is angered or prejudiced by Sri Lanka’s decision to withdraw from the previous co-sponsorship of the Human Rights Council resolutions in February 2020. Apparently, that is why the year 2020 is marked. The paragraph 2 of the Report expresses this dissatisfaction.
It must be understood that in independent and sovereign countries there can be different views on the matter of ‘co-sponsorship’ and if this understanding is lacking on the part of the Commissioner’s Office, there cannot be proper understanding of human rights or freedoms. In this case of a country.
Distorted Historical Context
Part II of the Report tries to give a distorted and even a dangerous picture of the origins of insurrections, armed conflicts, and violence in Sri Lanka. Paragraph 7 begins with the following sentence.
Sri Lanka’s armed conflict emerged against the backdrop of deepening discrimination and marginalisation of the country’s minorities, particularly the Tamils.”
Mind you, there was an armed conflict in 1971 without any connection to the Tamils or discrimination against the Tamils. Most of these armed conflicts emerged (1971, 1983-2009, 1987-89) because of political objectives (or aspirations) above and beyond social grievances. Or otherwise, there were democratic and peaceful means to rectify them although arduous and slow.
The phrase ‘against the backdrop’ in the statement may appear sobering the implied connection between the ‘armed conflict’ and ‘discrimination of minorities.’ However, it is a direct or indirect justification of the LTTE’s ‘armed conflict.’ It is also not correct to characterize the ‘armed conflict’ as between two equal contenders. Those were armed insurrections against a democratically elected government.
The report refers to that again more explicitly again in implicit justification. It goes like the following.
The 30-year war between the Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), as well as earlier insurgencies in the south, were marked by persistent and grave human rights violations and abuses by both parties, including extrajudicial killing, widespread enforced disappearances, arbitrary detention, torture and sexual violence that affected Sri Lankans from all communities. (My emphasis).
Could the resort to arm struggles by the LTTE or the JVP be justified by human rights violations? In my opinion ‘No’ particularly in a democratic or even in a semi-democratic country. Although the statement says, ‘violation and abuses by both parties’ what is mentioned here are ‘extrajudicial killings’ ‘enforced disappearances’ ‘arbitrary detention’ ‘torture and sexual violence,’ usually referred or attributed to a State.
Political Bias
Most alarming in the Report is the obvious political bias expressed in favor of the last government and against the present government. This should not be the case in a human rights report. Paragraphs 15 and 16 are very clear on this matter. First para begins:
It was at this juncture that a national unity Government, formed in January 2015, made important commitments to confront the past, strengthen democratic and independent institutions, and end impunity.”
This is a clear example that the Commissioner or the Commissioner’s Office has a clear political bias over political matters, party politics and democratic governmental changes within a sovereign and an independent country. While pointing out some inconsistencies and delays, the Report further states:
Nevertheless, Sri Lanka seemed to be on a new path towards advancing reconciliation, accountability and human rights. The developments since November 2019, however, have reversed that direction and, instead, threaten a return to patterns of discrimination and widespread violations of human rights experienced in past decades. (My emphasis).
In Section III, there are six subsections devoted to political matters apart from human rights issues and violations. There is no question that there are ongoing human rights issues and violations, and the governmental structures undoubtedly impinge on them. These are common to many countries including Western nations in different degrees.
The task of the Commissioner’s Office or the UN would be to involve member countries in a constructive dialogue without preferring defeated governments/parties, and without involving in political polemics. Otherwise, there are serious doubts whether the Commissioner or the Commissioner’s Office aiding and abetting defeated governments, terrorist groups like the LTTE or the JVP ostensibly in the name of human rights.
As an academic representing the World University Service (WUS) before the UN Commission on Human Rights and the Sub-Commission during 1984-1991, the present situation at the Human Rights Office in Geneva appears extremely sad. I have never seen an extremely political report such as the present during that time.
