Victor Ivan lends his intellect to the 'Victor'

The joyous mood of victory has caught up with everyone and this time it is Victor Ivan who thinks it’s prudent to lend his intellect to the victor.

He wrote a piece for Ravaya about two weeks back saying that its good for the Tamil people that the LTTE will get defeated. Kumar David responded in the Sunday Island and a translation of Victor’s piece also appeared. Gamini Viyangoda also had responded. I have not read any of these pieces in detail. This weeks Sunday Island (28 September) carries a response by Victor to Kumar. This is a response primarily to this piece of Victor’s.

The crux of Victor’s argument seems to be the following: It is naked power that operates in any war. It is the same naked power that the security forces and the LTTE are unleashing against each other in competitive fashion. And when the LTTE is defeated when the war is over freedom will be restored to the Tamil people though nothing new to them might be “offered”.

Now I do not quarrel with the fact that LTTE uses naked power. Naked power, Victor defines quoting Bernard Russel is, as being the loyalty enforced through the infusion of fear disregarding all traditional beliefs and social approval under a situation when two or more fanatical creeds are contending for governance and when all traditional beliefs have decayed. I agree with this.

However my quarrel starts here. The issue is this: whether the Tamils like it or not through a bloody system of killings and counter killings ‘they’ remain the only option for the Tamil people for a just solution to the problem. This is because it is power and hard power that politicians in the South take notice of and they are the only ones who have it. Now that is what is under a threat of destruction. Victor thinks this is desirable. Of course he might ask the question is it worth risking the lives of Tamils for a ‘just’ solution? The following is a response to that.

Destruction of one naked power will lead to ‘no war’. That’s very simplistic. The naked power that is sought to be destructed was a response to the naked power exercised by those who are ‘winning’ now. Victor thinks that the naked power that was unleashed on the Tamil people will stop once the naked power that responded to this ‘original’ naked power is destroyed. The original naked power is still there and its roots are in majoritarianism. Has this changed? No. That might not be visible militarily once the responsive naked power is destroyed. But this ‘original’ naked power will continued to be exercised politically and this will lead eventually to the annihilation of the Tamil people or to their assimilation in a grand ‘Sri Lankan society’. Of course Victor makes a value judgment as to which naked power is better to live under. His choice: The original majoritarian naked power. That can’t be for me. Hence I agree with Kumar. The only option is for the LTTE to be reformed.

Here are a some excerpts from Victor and my comments on them:

Then in the absence of an armed rival group to fight the security forces, the need does not arise for physical suppression, maintenance of high security zones and for the security forces to get involved in the management of day to day matters. Along with the cessation of war assassinations, disappearances, abductions and arrests will cease.

The problem is the word 'absence' here. When will one be satisfied with finality that there is now an 'absence' of the armed rival group? It is predicted that the weeding out process will continue for a long time and my prediction is that the final result of the weeding out might be the total annihilation of the Tamil people.

Victor also seems to have completely subscribed to the now popular notion that once the armed rival group is gone the ethnic conflict will be gone. We will have a rosy Sri Lanka.

(After the defeat of the armed rival group) the democratic outlets which were hitherto closed will gradually be opened. The freedom of expression will be restored. They will get an opportunity to carefully review the issues pertaining to their struggle and assess the reasons that led to the defeat of the Tamil struggle, comprehend the true rights that they should fight for and the right course of action to be adopted etc.

And then what Mr Ivan? What do you think the right course of action will be? What are the ‘true’ rights that the Tamils should fight for? How should they ‘struggle’? Another armed movement? Or Parliamentary politics? Or Provincial council politics? Tell us which one? Or is it the option that the Tamil people become slowly assimilated with the 'Sri Lankan' society? But you are the one who is quite sure that there will be nothing new offered to the Tamil people? So where does this comment come from Victor?

Victor says the LTTE was never serious about internal self determination. Sad. And probably true. But is that an excuse for the South not working on a solution? Of course he does think that there will not be anything new offered to the Tamil people. That can’t be helped according to Victor probably. That’s your fate he seems to tell people like me.

White Van Abduction Legalised

I am reporting on this because the English print media has either got it wrong or didn't understand the proceedings in the Supreme Court (Daily Mirror) Or they have chosen not to report on it (Island - probably wasnt important enough for them). I think the flawed reportage or non reportage is deliberate because they probably believe or fear that such reporting will or will be considered as undermining the war.

The Supreme Court heard a case filed by Thondaman's party (the Ceylon Workers Congress) which is part of the Mahinda Rajapaksha Government yesterday, regarding the abduction of one of their trade union officials. The person had been abducted by a white van and becuase of the political influence CWC yields its party leaders were able to trace the person to the custody of the Terrorism Investigation Department (TID). The facts were not disputed by the State represented by the Attorney General's Department (Mr. Palitha Fernando, the Additional Solicitor General appeared). This is probably the first case and will be the only case where somebody who had been abducted had the courgae to go to courts to file a case. The reason is obvious because the person belonged to a political party in alliance with the Government. The CWC is to be commended for bringing it to courts and not pushing it under the carpet to save the reputation of the Government.

When the case was taken up before the Chief Justice's bench (the other two judges sitting with him were Justices Shiranee Tilakawerdena and Justice Sripavan) the Chief Justice in the course of the proceedings refused to condemn the mode of 'arrest'. He chasticised the petitioner's counsel, blaming him for bringing a case for 'international news consumption'. He said that the court can do nothing to give directives regarding the use of white vans as there were too many of them in the country!! He made unintelligible assertions in open court like for instance that Sri Lanka has the largest van population in the country and that it would not be possible to restrict the import or usage of white vans into the country etc!! (He was laughing when he said this and to my disgust a majority of the members of the bar and most of the public present laughed with him) Clearly what was being asked was for a delcaration that the police had violated the petitioners fundamental right by engaging in a mode of arrest that was blatantly unlawful and unconstitutional. The CJ also said that what was important was whether one was able to find the person who was abducted and hence it was an affirmative in this case there shouldnt be an issue. The counsel protested saying that this was possible because the petitioner belonged to a political party. The CJ was dismissive in his response. The CJ thought that a receipt being issued after arrest through the local police station should be satisfying. In his order at the end of the hearing he included the above 'condition' for 'arrests' being made using white vans nd also went on to say that since torture was not being alleged in custody that violation of article 13 of the constitution was not at stake. The conusel for the petitioner protested and said that they didnt say that. The CJ queried in response as to whether they are assuming torture was being inflicted. Surely the CJ was assuming that torture was not being inflicted!! The fomer assumption is more closer to the truth than the latter for anyone who knows anything about the TID.

What the Supreme Court has essentially done is legalise the use of white vans for 'arresting' a person on the condition that a receipt be issued after the abduction is carried out. This is probably the most absurdest of all sorts of 'justice' that this Supreme Court has meted out. And hence the white van abductions can now proceed with glee!!

The CJ was worried that the case was being brought beofre him for international news consumption. (I dont think the international media is that interested in what is happening in this country. For a start not even the national media is bothered). But irrespective of what has been said in the brackets above, surely if the international community didnt know this before the decision has confirmed that even the third organ of Government - the judiciary in this country is incapable of protecting the interests of its minority populations. Now thats the message that the CJ has clearly given for international news consumption.

Arundhathi Roy on Azad for Kashmir

I read Arundhati Roy's piece on the situation in Kashmir titled "Azadi: Its the only thing the Kashmiri wants: Denial is delusion" as usual she has a terrific piece. (Azadi means freedom) It can be read here. You might have to register to read it. Its free though.

Here are some excerpts and my comments:

For somebody like myself, who is not Muslim, that interpretation of freedom is hard—if not impossible—to understand. I asked a young woman whether freedom for Kashmir would not mean less freedom for her, as a woman. She shrugged and said, "What kind of freedom do we have now? The freedom to be raped by Indian soldiers?" Her reply silenced me.

I have recently heard from some and had certain conversations about the issue of minority tamils (Tamils from the lower castes). While i think the issue is a serious one that deserves meritorious consideration i believe that those who raise it have mischievous intentions. (for example when Malinda Seneviratne raises it) Reading Arundadhi's comment above, its an apt response to all those who raise questions about whether freedom or autonomy for Tamils will resolve the 'other' issues. The bigger issue weighs down. 'What kind of freedom do we have now', irrespective of whether i am from a higher caste or a lower caste as a tamil, or whether you are a man or a woman as a Kashmiri, is a persuasive response.

I post this following paragraph without much comment. It has a lot of comparison to the anxiety of what a 'free' or autonomous tamil speaking territory would turn out to be:

Arguments that spring from love are also fraught with danger. It is for the people of Kashmir to agree or disagree with the Islamic project (which is as contested, in equally complex ways, all over the world by Muslims as Hindutva is contested by Hindus).Perhaps now that the threat of violence has receded and there is some space in which to debate views and air ideas, it is time for those who are part of the struggle to outline a vision for what kind of society they are fighting for. Perhaps it is time to offer people something more than martyrs, slogans and vague generalisations. Those who wish to turn to the Quran for guidance will no doubt find guidance there. But what of those who do not wish to do that, or for whom the Quran does not make place? Do the Hindus of Jammu and other minorities also have the right to self-determination? Will the hundreds of thousands of Kashmiri Pandits living in exile, many of them in terrible poverty, have the right to return? Will they be paid reparations for the terrible losses they have suffered? Or will a free Kashmir do to its minorities what India has done to Kashmiris for 61 years? What will happen to homosexuals and adulterers and blasphemers? What of thieves and lafangas and writers who do not agree with the "complete social and moral code"? Will we be put to death as we are in Saudi Arabia? Will the cycle of death, repression and bloodshed continue? History offers many models for Kashmir's thinkers and intellectuals and politicians to study. What will the Kashmir of their dreams look like? Algeria? Iran? South Africa? Switzerland? Pakistan?

ST's advice to UNP on how to be politically sexy!!

Today's (24 August) Sunday Times Editorial on the provincial council elections has this offer of advice to the UNP:

By putting forward Maj-Gen. (Ret.) Janaka Perera, the UNP was able to negate the Government's accusation that the UNP was an anti-national party. But some UNP leaders still keep harping on a political solution with the LTTE, something that is not only not sexy with the vast majority of the Sinhalese electorate, but also sounds hollow in the backdrop of Security Forces advances. It will be time for the UNP to re-think this line if it is to mount some challenge to the Rajapaksa administration which seems to be able get the mileage it wants despite all the odds otherwise stacked against it.

If you are to win an election you need to put forward not a seasoned politician but a former military general. That is the mantra of winning an election. But they lost right? How the ST's reference that putting forward Janaka Perera makes UNP not an anti national party. Ho ho!! This is how we define being patriotic and nationalistic. Even the media tows the MR line on this. And then ST laments UNP partymen still talking about a political solution. Bravo!! UNP dropped the federalism slogan to be politically appealing and now is being advised to drop the slogan for the need for a political solution as well. And this coming from a media organisation like the Times!! We are irreparably doomed!!

'Burning memories'

The burning of the Jaffna Public Library was probably one among the first of increasing acts of violence against the Tamils in this country that peaked in July 83 and a memory of July 83 much talked in its 25th anniversary should also include a reflection of this important incident in the history of the ethnic conflict. This is a small note from my experiences with the Jaffna Public library.

******

'Burning memories' is the title of a 49 minute documentary that Someetharan of Jaffna/Batticaloa has produced on the burning of the Jaffna Public Library. Sommetharan in the past worked for North East Herald, Thinakkural Jaffna and studied visual media in Chennai. He had apparently worked on the documentary for three years. The documentary is available in multiple languages including Tamil and English. The production according to a review published in the Kalachuvadu (Kalachuvadu is a left leaning social, literary, political magazine published from Tamil Nadu. Read the review here) is to be welcomed for its efforts but regrets that the documentary does not provide enough scientific analysis of the incident. It notes that it is frequently repeated in the documentary that 97,000 books were burnt in the incident but does not provide an analysis of the kind of books/manuscripts were burnt and the nature of the irreparable loss. The review also notes that mostly 'moderates' have been interviewed and that given the prevailing situation in Sri Lanka that Someetharan has engaged in ceratin level of self censorship. I haven't seen the documentary yet. I am looking forward to watching it. The criticism aside I am very happy that somebody is using the medium of visual media to document incidents in the history of the conflict. A 'documentary' culture is pretty much non existent in Sri Lanka and this production should be welcomed.

More information re the documentary can be found here:
http://burningmemories.org/
http://kanapraba.blogspot.com/2008/06/blog-post_25.html

******

I was born 4 years after the library was burnt in 1981 and i very well remember the blackened library that stood in front of the Jaffna Central College until efforts to refurbish it started taking place after CBK came (more on this in the next section).

I was back home in Jaffna last June and i went to the Public Library twice when i was there. I like the spacious library a lot - i have always enjoyed the peace that comes with the vacuum that adjoins spacious tall buildings. I used it a lot during the final few months in the lead up to my Advanced Level exams. The library now does not have a lot of books. A few thousands possibly. The first time i tried to go to the library when i was there this time i was stopped at an army centry point and i was asked to surrender my NIC and to collect it on the way back. I know that this can be a dangerous thing to do and turned back. The area is a 'high security zone' (this phrase is misleading any part of Jaffna can become a high security zone whenever the military wants it to be) and apparently there was some top military brass having a meeting somewhere close by. The other time i took the Vembadi road which has become one way now. Have to take a lengthy road back to return.

The significance of the Jaffna Public library burning is to be understood by the weight that the Jaffna people attach to education. As has been widely commented on, education was one of the key areas that the peninsula's economic base rested on. There is a statue of Godess Saraswathi that is still found at the entrance to the library. She is regarded as the Goddess of Education in Hindu religious belief. Users of the library have to remove footwear before entering the library. This might be possibly to keep the floor which is white tiled clean. But i cant help thinking that it is also in a a sense a show of respect to the place. In the second sentence in this paragraph i use the word 'was' in the past tense. Jaffna no more enjoys a pride of place as an educationally advanced district. It is one of the seven out of the eight districts in the North and East which 'enjoy' the disadvantaged district status. Most of our students rely on the district quota and the disadvantaged quota for access to university education. One of the main causes for the conflict was standardisation. Today the Jaffna community seeks standardisation in the form of quotas and would be happy if the district quota is increased. The decline of standards in education in Jaffna is a direct resultant of the war and the burning of the library symbolically kick started the decline.

****

I also remember the politics behind the effort to refurbish and restore the Public Library. I identify with those who stood for the burnt library to stand as a memory of a part of history that should not be forgotten. That never happened. They could have constructed a new one if they wanted. CBK was adamant and wanted to force this act of benevolence down the Tamil peoples throat while she was waging a war for peace. I also recall the debates about the act of opening the refurbished library. I agree with those who felt that there should be no opening ceremony as such. I couldn't appreciate any extravagance associated with opening the library to public use again. The Jaffna Municipal Council is the proprietor of the library and the Mayor wanted to open it. Some were opposed to this for a really ugly reason - that he belonged to a lower caste. Anadasangaree at that time head of the entire TULF also wanted to open it himself. The LTTE also got involved and the scene became uglier. Anadasangaree's website provides a statement of the UTHR here which gives a brief of the incidents that took place: http://anandasangary.com/?p=201. I went through this link after i typed up this post and find that my views on the whole issue mostly resemble that of the LTTE. This is entirely coincidental.
The library was later opened for public use without anybody opening it.

******

My interpretation of the Eastern Provincial Council Elections

I have in the past on this blog written about the Local Government Elections in the East questioning its purpose and motive. I decried in that post about how calling for elections have come to be understood as inherently good. Nothing short what is called ‘electrocracy’. The Govt needed the ballot box to justify what it was doing in the East. Now it has become clear that the LG elections were held by the Govt to check how much of a hold its partner the TMVP has in the East. Being assured by the results they decided to call for the elections.

No Election Manifesto
It was an election campaign where the TMVP did not have an election manifesto. Where they did not embark on detailed campaigning. The arms were there. Having them was enough to scare the people. You didn’t have to use them. It would have been unimaginable what would have happened if they had lost. I am not denying that they attracted considerable popular support. Ill come back in this post for the possible reasons for this popular support.

There was no election manifesto probably because MR’s ‘East is rising’ programme was acceptable to the TMVP. This despite the concerns expressed by various groups (Muslim Civil society organisations, SLMC, reports such as those of the International Crisis Group and of course the TNA) that the programme was nothing but a plan to manipulate the demographics of the Eastern Programme in the name of environmental safe havens (Champika Ranawakka is our Minister of Environment) and discovery missions to find relics of Buddhist heritage in the East. Of course you build a bridge and lay a road here and there as part of the programme. Even building bridges and roads can be used to cater to the main objective of changing demographics. This is nothing but a discontinued programme that has been resurrected.

Running the Eastern PC – Capacity issues
In an interview that Pillayan gave as soon as it was announced that he will be the CM all he could say was that he will try to find employment for all those who asked from him at the elections. So much for his plans to develop the East. I suspect that there will be a huge issue with regard to capacity when it comes to running the council. Provincial councils elsewhere in general have experienced this even where they have been run by age old parties experienced in organisational stuff. Passing statutes (that is how laws passed by PCs are known) and getting through the know how of that is pretty complicated in the tough job of understanding what your competence is vis a vis the reserved list and the national list. There have been very few statues that have been passed by Provincial councils in Sri Lanka. It doesn’t need much elaboration as to how PCs are already suffocated from any actual powers. (for eg the Central Government can pass a law on any subject under the guise of making national policies). This issue of capacity will be exploited well by Basil Rajapaksha. The Asian Tribune reports that three capable people have been recruited by Pillaiyan (including Dr Vickneswaran former Secretary to Varatharaja Perumal when he was CM for the North East, also formerly with the EPDP and now has his own party. He is a capable man with a PhD in Engineering) I am surprised that these people accepted Pillaiyan’s invitation but happy that they will probably be able to resist any big time incursions from Basil). I wonder how land issues will be handled. Land is largely a subject belonging to the Central Govt but since the ruling party in both CG and the PC are the same one wonders how this will work. Especially the Muslim-Tamil land issues. Pillayan has already said that he doesn’t want police powers. (probably because he has his own!!)

About the CM himself.
It was easy for the Govt that it was Pillayan and not Karuna. (That’s probably why they packaged him off to London). Karuna’s baggage is well known. Not many people know who Pillaiyan is or what his past was about. He was probably third or fourth down the order in the Easter Tiger hierarchy. So for the South to accept him wasn’t that hard.

As a Tamil I am worried about the damage that these elections have brought about on Tamil-Muslim relations. Hisbullah’s campaign that they need a Muslim Chief Minister and the way he craftily handled the allocation of nominations within the UPFA has produced more Muslim PC members than Tamil (almost double the number of Tamil PC members).

TMVP’s popular support
And finally on the popular support for TMVP in the East. Pillaiyan despite the enormous ballot stuffing probably did attract a lot of Tamil voters and I suspect most of them youngsters. Whether this was because he was the only ‘electable’ Tamil candidate (someone with a chance of winning and not allowing a Muslim to become CM) or whether it was because the people identify with the regionalist sentiments that TMVP stands for is a matter of debate. My hunch is that it is the former. I would find it difficult to see how the Tamils could have voted for a party which despite its regionalistic sentiments could join hands with what is perceived as the common ‘enemy’ – The Southern Sinhala Buddhist Chauvanistic bloc. (Consider the good relationships between the JHU and the TMVP). And hence the vote for Pillaiyan. That was sad. I would have preferred Hakeem as CM!

To be in Government should not be the only objective of Political Parties

Tridip Suhrud a Social Scientist from Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India is a columnist with the Inidian Express. Today's column (http://www.indianexpress.com/story/282683.html) is a criticism of the way the Congress party works in India. A criticism that doing politics is not just about being in the government. The criticism is valid for all parties in India and Sri Lanka which are caught up in an era where colaition governments have become the norm - an era where dubious, 'unholy' alliances are forged to be able to 'govern'. I have found it disgusting when our parliamentarians cross over and provide justification that they are doing it so that they can serve the people. Meaning that is the be all and end all of doing politics and 'serving the people'. Looking at the present Mahinda Government it is a soup of political parties and it would be futile for anyone to figure out a government position on any social issue. Though there is seldom anything new in this article I like the way he theortises his take on the subject with which i agree in its entirety.

On the need for differentiating the goals of a political party as opposed to the functions of a Government
"The government.. (has its)..unique ways of solving issues, it also ha(s) its limits and restraints. He [Nehru] warned that mere power of the government was not enough. The government cannot, by its very nature, raise fundamental issues facing a society and a nation. The role of the Congress was, he said, to remain within politics — not necessarily within government — and raise and confront fundamental issues. Because, in politics one looks to the advantage of the moment. But an action that was informed by deeper understanding of the political realm would be framed differently. The action must be right in itself, whether it leads to an immediate advantage or not".

"The ability of the Congress to discern the difference between forms of governance, political action and the larger role of occupying the political space has frayed. It sees itself as a body whose role should be to occupy the position of governance. It is true that one of the moving forces for a political party is the will to power. But to consider governmental power as an end in itself can be dangerous for a political organisation. It gives primacy to governance over the political thereby restricting the role of the political organisation. The party thus becomes an instrument of governance and not of confronting fundamental issues and setting the terms of political debate".

Critiquing the tendency to look at politics as something that has to be 'managed'
"The party is seen as a bureaucratic organisation. It sees politics and even elections essentially as a managerial problem, or worse a technocratic problem. Politics as a management exercise gives centrality to the ‘expert’ and not to the polis. It, in fact, shuts out the voice of the people or the ordinary, primary member of the party as ‘noise’ in the system. A managerial exercise is also an affirmation of the hierarchy. It also validates back-room politics as real politics. It thinks of acquisitions and mergers as robust forms of political alignment. Gujarat is a classic case in point. The Congress believed that by aligning itself with the rebels within the BJP it could defeat Modi. It surrendered to the new allies, allowing them to dictate even the choice of party candidates".

Our CJ's blabbering!!

There are many reasons to dislike our Chief Justice: For example his disconnected jurisprudence intervening in cases where he thinks fit without giving us reasons why he did it in this case and not the other one. His judgment finding the need for removal of permanent check points which is no lesser a national security issue than the Muttur High Security Zone case wherein he warned the petitioners not to bring politically charged matters of that nature to court is a classic example. Wasn't the issue of permanent check point also a politically charged case involving an issue of National Security? He has converted the court to a mediation board or a Panchayat sort of where he tries to bring cases that come to him to a 'settlement'. In the interests of speedier justice we are told.

But what propelled me to write this post is the speech that he delivered at the opening of the Consumer Court. The Chief Justice is quoted to have made the following 'observation':

“Now teachers are on sick leave. During our school days we were given six cuts for malingering. Now I am waiting for those teachers to come before me. I will give them a suitable punishment”

While it is wrong i believe for a Chief Justice to comment out of court in such a degrading manner the action being taken by the Teacher's union (The merits or demerits of the teachers action is irrelevant here) what is worrying is the Chief Justice's comment that he is 'waiting fr the matter to come to court'. Now a judge is supposed to hear a case and based on the arguments placed before him arrive at a judgment taking into consideration the interests of the parties and the society as a whole. Here is a Chief Justice (not some low court judge) who has already formed an opinion and is waiting to deliver that opinion on the parties involved in the case. What kind of justice is this? He has to the teachers effectively shut the doors of the supreme court not only on this issue but possible on any other issue they might bring. In legal academic jargon this is known as 'ex post facto rationalisation'.

As far as i know Judges of Superior courts all around the world usually tend to have a prepared speech (This is to avoid any 'slip of the tongue' mistakes) when they accept invitations to speak out of court. They go for selected occasions usually to deliver memorial orations. This is i would argue in the interests of the impartiality of the position they hold and a matter of public confidence in the duties that they carry out. Our Chief Justice like a politician is known to go for all sorts of functions for the stage and the garland. (there are those who seriously think that he might run for public office after he steps down :-). He is known to make very populist speeches. In this speech he condemns the privatisation of gas, argues for protectionism (wants to stop foreign imports. He's worried about tinned fish) all populist matters that you will expect politicians and not a Chief Justice to take on. (I am also a critique of him appearing on Buddhist TV. Agreed this is not a secular country. But shouldn't we expect that the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice at least be secular as a matter of tradition.)

Dayan's Politico-Academic Veneer

The Hon Dayan Jayatilleke is quite a well known academic / politician turned diplomat - our Ambassador to the UN in Geneva. Mr.Jayatilleke's past is diverse to say the least: Among other roles he was a former supporter of the EPRLF and the Tamil Self Determination movement (The Late Kethesh Loganathan i understand had taken him in the 80s to Jaffna to lecture to the EPRLF cadres probably on Marxism) , a former Minister of Fisheries in Varadharajah Perumal's short lived North East Provincial Government, a former Advisor to President Premadasa and a former academic at the University of Colombo. The British Foreign Secretary David Milband released a message on the eve of Sri Lanka's 60th Independence day celebrations in which the Foreign Secretary called for an end to violence and regretted the abrogation of the CFA. Mr. Jayatilleke has responded to this statement in an article appearing in yesterday's (13 February) Island. You can read the article here http://www.island.lk/2008/02/13/features6.html. Let me give you some extracts from this article and leave it to to you to judge their content.

Dayan's description of the war being waged by the Mahinda regime as a bourgeois democratic revolution (Wonder when Marxists started supporting and being an agent of bourgeois democratic revolutions!!):

Sri Lanka is fighting a war to prevent separation, to unite the country, to maintain it as a single territory, to make the writ of the state run from West to East, North to South of our little island. This is a struggle undertaken by many societies at an earlier stage of their history. It is part of what is known as the bourgeois democratic revolution, i.e. those tasks undertaken or completed by the rising bourgeois class of those nations. In the global South, this task of national unification often comes up against the opposition of the Western powers (as it did in China). This seems to be the case in present day Sri Lanka too. In such historical situations, the tasks of national unification combine with the struggle to win or defend national independence and sovereignty

Justification for a majoritarian nationalist project:

Sometimes the task of national unification takes a particularly enlightened ultilingual, multi-religious character, but in many, even most cases, the struggle requires the mobilization of the peasantry and the nationalist intelligentsia and therefore takes a majoritarian nationalist, even religio-nationalist, character.

Warning to the West similar To Bush's "Either you are with us or with the enemey" comment.

If any country takes a stand that is tilted against us or is ambivalent in this most fundamental of struggles, then we must recognize that there exists an incompatibility of interests between those countries and ours. Such states are not firm friends or staunch allies. It should be made clear to them that their stand today directly influences the role they will or will not have in influencing the post-war, post-conflict order in Sri Lanka. Those who stand against us, who threaten or attempt to intimidate us; those who vacillate and temporize during this war, have forfeited the chance to play a role in the peace. They must be limited to a strictly diplomatic presence. There are on the other hand, states that have uncritically supported us during this war, or have voiced their misgivings and advice in private. They are the ones with whom we have a basic identity of interests. These are our friends, allies and partners. They are the extended family to which we truly belong.

Local Government Elections in the Eastern Province: Empowering the people?

This is reproduced from a comment i made to Sanjana's article on groundviews: http://www.groundviews.org/2008/02/05/eastern-elections/

For whom are these elections being held? Can Local Government of Provincial Council Elections empower the people of the East to usher in the development that the region requires? The answer is a plain no. Both the Local Government and the Provincial Council systems do not have the legal competency (powers) or the finances to undertake development work leave alone taking care of basic or local needs. The public administration system (GA's and AGA's) managed by the Central Government run the show when it comes to the basic day to day needs of the people. The ‘Big’ Ministries and the ‘Big’ Ministers at the Centre and in this case the Ministry of Nation Building (one of those five which comes under the President) are responsible for the so far announced development projects for the East. These are being done (if at all if they are being implemented) with almost zero consultation with the elected representatives from the East. Mr. Basil Rajapaksha is in full control. DBS Jeyeraj in a post on his website dated Oct 20, 2007, candidly explains how these projects could be used and are being used to promote Sinhala colonisation in the East. So are the LG representatives going to be of use? Are we naive to think that democratic elections should not be questioned for their purpose? That’s the first question – would the Local Government representatives be used or would they be of use within the present framework of governance? The second is the one that a lot of people are raising will it be of value balanced with the blood that is being and going to be shed in electing these representatives?

The UPFA is teaming up with TMVP for the polls. Without Govt support the TMVP cannot exist. So the TMVP has no choice but to accept UPFA as an electoral partner to gain legitimacy. So even there given that TMVP will sweep the polls the govt is going to have full control. A self-serving election for the Government this will be.

Stonic silence over arrest of Tamils

The English print media today (Sunday, Dec 02) maintained a disgusting silence over the arrest of more than 800 Tamils, with the exception of the Nation which carries the story as its main headline. Neither the Sunday Times or the Island had no space to carry the item. Lakbima refers only to the operation and how it was executed (referring it to as a 'combing out operation') and does not talk of the plight of those arrested and that of the parents. The Tamil papers carry them as headlines. The website http://www.puthinam.com/ has a detailed piece on the incident including the parents of the arrested attempt at staging a protest march to Temple Trees and UNP MP Maheswaran's and Dy Minister Radhakrishnan's futile attempt at trying to get an appointment with the President. Mano Ganeshan also has come out with a strong statement and has called Tamil MPs irrespective of whether they are in the Govt or the opposition and irrespective of the fact that it will be passed despite their vote, to vote against extending Emergency Regulations when it comes up for extension next time. This he has urged will send a strong message to the current administration. Puthinam also noted that most Tamils who were arrested hail from the Upcountry Tamil community.

My disgust with the English media continues to grow. Why this silence? Was it because it was not an important enough issue that was worth carrying in their esteemed newspapers? Or is it because they thought the Tamils deserved such treatment? Or is it because they think its a necessary 'action' to curb terrorism and preserve national security and 'some people' unfortunately will have to continue to be treated in this manner for the 'greater' good or rather the welfare of the majority?

Unintended comedy - Dayan on VoT attack and Rajiva on Karuna

yes Its not just our politicians but also our public officials and diplomats who continue to make unintelligent, incomprehensible statements on matters of vital importance to the Government. Consider these for instance:

Dayan Jayatilleke (our Permanent Rep to UN in Geneva) responding to Reporters Without Borders condemning the attack on Voice of Tigers as quoted in Today's (30 Nov) Island:

"The radio station concerned is neither an independent media organization nor located in an independent country. In short, it was neither legal nor legitimate. It was not, for instance Al Jazeera or the Serbian TV." (http://www.island.lk/2007/11/30/news14.html)

Is it that the government will attack all 'non-independent media' organisations? There goes all our media organisations!! And not located in an independent country? Is he conceding that Killinochi is no more part of the independent country of Sri Lanka?

And this is our Prof Rajiva Wijesinghe. An extract from an interview that he gave to BBC Asia today. He himself has taken pride in what he has said in the interview that he has got it posted on the Peace Secretariat website.

Presenter: But it is rather unlikely that you have taken out one of their chief egotiators on the very same day we saw colonel Karuna arrested here in London and the charge that’s put is that it was the Sri Lankan government that enabled him to travel – to get him out of the way – on a diplomatic passport.

Dr.Rajiva Wijesinha: That charge I have certainly read and it is conceivable but when I first saw he was in London I thought that this was a wonderful British way of removing a problem and agreeing to have him...I think certainly the fact that Karuna is no longer in the East would help in reducing
some of the tension.

Prof Wijesinghe is known for his almost daily reports on the SCOPP webiste using the space to mud sling on a wide variety of people - Prof. Uyangoda (for calling the secretariat a war secretariat - I am full in agreement with the Professor), Bradman Weerakoon, Rohan Edrisinha, Dr. Saravanamuttu, Sunila Abeyesekera and others who resigned from the advisory committee to the Ministry of Human Rights, the International Commission of Jurists etc etc, and of course the UNP and its leader.

There used to be a time when our public officials though controlled by politicians were careful in showing themselves as apolitical. Nowadays this is not the case. And Dayan an Rajiva are of course political appointees and people who were involved in politics. Rajiva was President of the Liberal Party and Dayan's political credentials are very diverse to elaborate, including his short stint as Minister of Fisheries in the Varadaharaja Perumal North East Provincial Government.

Post Script - 02 December 2007

Todays Sunday Island in its editorail commends Dayan's remarks:

Ambassador Dayan Jayatillake in Geneva competently handled criticism by various organization, including the local Free Media Movement, of the bombing of the Voice of Tigers radio station in Kilinochchi shortly before Prabhakaran’s annual birthday speech by pointing out that VoT was neither an independent media organization nor located in an independent country. It was a propaganda organ of an armed separatist organization designated as terrorist by many countries. The employment of civilians in that facility, if indeed there were any, was a choice made by the LTTE. The target was a legitimate one.

So the message is: "If the LTTE employs civilians then we cant help it. Its unfortunate. LTTE should be blamed. We are helpless"

To support or not to support Pakistan and our media

The Sri Lankan media's reporting on the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister's 'blunder' in supporting the decision to support Pakistan makes an interesting study. Today's Sunday Times, in the political editor's column has the following to say:

Pakistan has been our steadfast supporter during our battle with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) for nearly twenty five years now. Through military dictators and democratic leaders, Pakistan has not wavered. Bogollagama has been at sea on these matters. He first issued a statement asking that Pakistan be given time to restore democracy in that country. Then, the CMAG (Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group) of which Sri Lanka is a member Bogollagama gave Sri Lanka's assent to suspend Pakistan. The Commonwealth 'whites' viz., Britain, Australia, Canada and the New Zealand Secretary General Don McKinnon had prevailed upon Bogollagama, or so it seemed. (http://www.sundaytimes.lk/071125/Columns/political.html)

I am not sure why Bogallagoma made a change in stance wheras he speaking at an adjournment motion in Parliament on November 14th had stated,

I have just returned from London where I attended the extraordinary meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) convened by the Commonwealth Secretary General on Monday to primarily decide on “Developments in Pakistan”. Foreign Ministers from Lesotho, Malaysia, Malta, Sri Lanka and the UK and representatives of Canada, Papua New Guinea, St. Lucia and Tanzania participated in the session. I must say that Sri Lanka was able to play a pivotal role in ensuring that no precipitous action was taken with regard to Pakistan. (http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/8262)

(The ST reports that CMAG decidednot to ban Pakistan)

Now coming to the issue that i seek to highlight: While our media hastens to condemn action against the suppression of the freedom of expression in this country (sometimes selectively as it does) should it not express solidarity with its Pakistani counterparts when they are being silenced and subjugated? Our media in general private or govt are no different on ceratin matters. They are highly 'nationalistic' at the core and dont take moral and value based positions on ceratin matters. I havent seen a single newspaper that has had the guts to say that democarcay is important for Pakistani people and that Sri Lanka should take a firm stand on this against Pakistan. As evidenced by the Sunday Times reference to the support that the govt gets support for our 'war on terror', that is the only defining line based on which we will take decisions in this country. If its bad for the LTTE its good for us. If its good for the LTTE then its bad for us.

P.S. The implication that 'whites' are the only ones who are bothered about democarcy in Pakistan and that our leaders do not have the guts to stand up to them is 'cheap reporting'. Again evoking national sentiments; the whites reference shows how we still are affected by the 'negative colonial hangover'.

The JHU and eviction of Tamils from Colombo

One of the first things that i noted in JHU's proposals to the APRC was the following 'concern' of the party for which they have given prominence in the very first page of their proposals about the number of Tamils living in Colombo:

"Since 1983 Tamils have been migrating from the so called ‘Tamil homeland’ to regions where the Sinhala people form the vast majority. In fact, Tamil migration has significantly changed the demography in these areas. Today, Tamils constitute the majority community in the most important Divisional Secretariat Division in the country, namely, Colombo"

I am not suggesting that the JHU had a direct role in what happened on the 7th of June and earlier in Pettah. But i am wondering the sort of influence that the JHU has on the police establishment and the armed forces. Its not my attempt here to make an assessment about how much of a political impact and reach the party has. But my suspicion is that a good number of people within the top hierarchy of the police establishment while holding similar views that the JHU holds on the ethnic conflict and towards minorities in general, might have indirect contact with the party. The fact that a former DIG is a central committee member of the JHU is one indicator. (who is now an advisor to the ministry of defence as well). I was also shocked to find a photograph of a Senior DIG receiving an award at the recently held JHU National Convention on JHU's www.sinhala.net a couple of weeks back. God save this country!!

The fancy with the Indian 'Panchayat Raj' and our own 'Grama Raj'

This is an excerpt of an assignment that i wrote on the topic "Should Local Government be recognized as a third tier of government?", as part of the evaluation process for my Bachelor of Laws Year II examinations. There is a lot more that can be said on the topic but as i had limited space and time to do my assignment i couldn't be as detailed as i would have loved to. But most of the basics i hope are covered in the excerpt. The topic becomes even more relevant as the SLFP proposals to the APRC due on the 1st of May are said to propose nothing else but the setting up of 'Grama Sabhas' and Districts Councils as its suggestions for a political settlement!! Footnote 1 and 3 provide additional information.

Fashioning the strengthening of local government as a solution to the ethnic conflict: A mockery of the minorities’ claim for devolution of powers

The setting up of an All Party Representatives Conference and the appointment of an Experts Panel to guide the APRC in formulating a constitutional proposal to find a political settlement to the ethnic conflict by President Mahinda Rajapaksha has yet again revived the discussion on the appropriate state structure to manage ethnic relations in the country. One of the interesting things that came out of this process was the fancy that some sections of the government including the President and a section of the Expert Panel took to the idea of the Panchayat Raj system in India as an appropriate model (subject to certain variations) to devolve powers to. In September 2006 the Union (central) Minister in charge of the subject of Panchayat Raj in India Mr. Mani Shankar Aiyar was invited to speak to the APRC and the experts panel. During this meeting the minister is said to have noted that “the Indian experiment on devolution of powers through Panchayat Raj model could be useful for Sri Lanka in dealing with its ethnic strife”[1]. On the invitation of the Indian Minister some of the Expert Panel members also undertook a study tour of India specifically looking at the workings of the Panchayat Raj system. President Rajapaksha also during his visit to India for the New Delhi Summit of the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation in March 2006 met with Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar at which the possibility of finding a solution to the ethnic conflict through the Panchayat Raj system was discussed.

Both the Expert Panel’s committee ‘A’ Interim report and the Committee ‘B’ Interim report[2] refer to the Panchayat Raj system. The Expert Committee ‘B’ in its report provides a lot of space to the subject of Local Government and Panchayat Raj. The substance of these reports relation to Local Government will be referred to in some detail in the next section but a comparison of attitudes is attempted with regards to both the reports handling of the question of devolution of powers and to illustrate how the genuine demand for devolution of powers can be sidelined, circumvented and be a made a mockery of in the name of strengthening local government.

A cursory assessment of committee ‘A’ report will indicate that the report makes fair inroads in identifying a viable mode for devolution of powers. Inter alia, the report suggests for the elimination of the concurrent list, strengthens the provincial list, providing for substantial powers for the second tier of government and suggests for innovative and progressive provisions in handling controversial subjects such as land and the question of merger of the North and East provinces. It also contains some salutary provisions for shared rule at the centre and deals progressively with the problems of the Muslim community and the Up Country Tamils. Hence there is nothing to ‘suspect’ when the Committee report states that they have no problems in introducing a system comparable to the Panchayat raj system or providing constitutional status to and enhancing powers of the Local Government. The committee report ‘B’ on the other hand is unambiguous in its drafter’s intention that they do not believe in devolution as a viable tool for conflict resolution. (In a section titled end notes which contain two sub-sections titled “relevant considerations” and “relevant principles” the drafters of the report place arguments as to why substantial devolution of powers would be unsuitable for Sri Lanka. While unashamedly denying that the minority communities have been denied their due share of state power, the report with regard to the unit of devolution states that “the case for establishing a mosaic of small units of devolution is persuasive and further states “a sub national tier of units of government coterminous with the present electoral districts has more comparative advantages than any other”. It recognizes provinces as the primary unit of devolution of power only for the reason that “it has been existence over most parts of the country for almost twenty years”. It appears that along with the concept of capital territories the call for strengthening of the local government, allocating a fourth list titled ‘local list’ and projecting local government as an ‘adequate protection for provincial minorities’ is primarily put forward to discredit any ‘decent’ devolution to the provinces[3]. (the issue of protection for provincial minorities in the report has been used as an excuse for central government domination within a weak scheme of devolution of powers). In fact a study of the powers recommended for the provincial councils in the ‘B’ report would reveal that it is less than what has been offered to the provinces under the 13^th amendment.

It should be noted that this is not the first time that local government structures have been fancied as appropriate units for ‘devolution’ (?) of power. The District Development Councils initiative of President J.R. Jayawardena in the early 1980s and the proposal of devolving the powers assigned to the provincial councils to the Pradeshiya Sabhas and the establishing of divisional secretariats during President Premadasa’s regime may be cited as examples. Kethesh Loganathan in an article that he wrote in 1992[4] crisply criticizes this approach with words couched in anger and frustration:

“The haste in which Divisional Secretariats are being established by the Presidential Secretariat and open declarations that the powers of the provincial councils shall be further devolved to the Pradeshiya Sabhas, is not only an act of deceit, but makes a mockery of devolution. As a matter of fact, the Government has ceased even thinking about devolution – the populist rhetoric now is “taking the Government to the people”. But we wish to emphasize that devolution as a solution to the Tamil question should not be confused with decentralization. What our people (ie the Ealam Tamils) seek is not the proximity of the Central Government through administrative decentralization, but provincial or regional autonomy that would ensure to them security, identity and social progress. Decentralization of administration is a matter that each provincial government will have to decide, depending on its need and compulsions.”

The central issues relating to the minorities in this country that Loganathan indicates - security, identity and social progress - especially security and law and order cannot be provided through a local government structure. Hence it will not be healthy to approach local governments as the base for devolution of powers for conflict management. Strengthening local governments is an act of decentralization and not of devolution of powers.

---

[1] Muralidhar Reddy. B, “Panchayat Raj useful to Sri Lanka: Aiyar”, The Hindu, International page, September 29 2006. Kuldip Nayar, a Senior Indian Journalist writing in the April 4^th edition of the Asian Age (a newspaper published in India) wrote as follows regarding Mani Shankar’s involvement with the APRC: “In fact, India’s Minister for Panchayati Raj, Mani Shankar Aiyar has been so voluminous in his praise for the Panchayat system that the Sri Lankan government seriously believes it has found an answer to its plans for the devolution of power. Most Lankan ministers I have talked to, including Opposition leaders, are sold to the Panchayat raj system which they say will evolve into a federal structure. This, in a way, indicates that Sri Lanka does not want to part with real power. But the much-vaunted provincial councils cannot even have any legislation passed. It is for Parliament to do so. Something as trivial as a culvert or an electricity pole is decided by the minister in charge because every such thing is announced to the humiliation of the provincial council members”.

[2] There was a split in the expert panel on the basis of ideology. The committee ‘A’ report consisted of 11 members of the panel who took a pro-devolution stand. Committee ‘B’ consisted of four of the panelists who took an anti-devolution stand. Two other members wrote separate reports.

[3] Comparative experiences in countries which have a strong centralized system of federalism narrate similar attempts by those in the Central Government to provide for more powers to the Local Government to under cut the provinces. In South Africa because of the historical hostility that the ruling African National Congress had towards Federalism they disliked the idea of devolving more powers to the provinces but instead were happy to delegate more powers to the Local Government institutions. Simeon and Murray see these developments as foreshadowing an "hourglass" system in which the national and local spheres become the dynamic elements, and the role of provincial governments is reduced, if not eliminated. See, Richard Simeon and Christina Murray, “Multiple Sphere Governance in South Africa: An interim assessment’, Publius, Vol.31, No.4 (Autumn 2001) p. 88. In India when the Rajiv Gandhi Government tried to bring in a constitutional amendment to vest more powers in the Panchayat systems it was widely seen as a move to under cut the states most of which were controlled by the oppositions parties. The attempt failed and the effort to constitutionalise the panchayat system materialized three years later in the Narasimha Rao administration. For a detailed discussion see, Krishna K. Tummala, ‘India’s Federalism under stress’, Asian Survey, Vol.32, No. 6, (June 1992) pp. 550, 551. The Indian experience with Panchayat raj generally speaks of state government's reluctance to give panchayats more power as they themselves have very few powers within the quasi- federal system which they do not want to 'lose' to the panchayats.

[4] Kethesh Loganathan in ‘Provincial Councils and Local Government: Their role in Strengthening Liberal Democracy’ ed by Rohan Edrisinha, The Council for Liberal Democracy (1992)

Paul Brass at ICES on Collective Violence & the Role of Civil Society: Some Notes, Thoughts & Questions

I was at the ICES on Monday (19th March) evening for a lecture by Prof. Paul. R. Brass on ‘Forms of Collective Violence’. I was at an ICES event almost after a year. (I think the last time I was there when they screened “Hotel Rwanda’).

My interest in Paul Brass was stimulated when I came across his book “Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison” when I was doing some research on pluralism. I have maintained an interest in Indian Politics for a very long time and I was naturally attracted to Brass’s work, Brass having spent almost 40 years of research work in India, specifically in Northern and Western India. (My colleagues at the Faculty of Law find American Politics more interesting and sometimes exhibit more involvement in it than local politics in Sri Lanka. To me this is a fall out of the Americanisation of the Global Communications world. At the same time I am also aware that their shift in interest towards American politics is largely because of their frustration with local politics). My interest in Indian politics is because of the fact that I had spent a fair amount of my very early years in Southern Tamil Nadu, the fact that I am a Tamil and because I admire the complex working of the Indian democratic set up with its vastness in population, area and diversity.)

To get back to the lecture, Paul Brass talked about his new book, “Forms of Violence: Riots, Pogroms and Genocide in Modern India” and set out to provide a summary of the arguments in his book. I make note in this post some aspects of his talk that attracted my attention.

The metaphor of a play and collective violence
Brass identifies him with the Instrumentalist school of understanding ethnography and hence rejects primordialism. He said that he does not believe in riots and other forms of violence as spontaneous and passionate responses emanating from people but as orchestrated by ‘institutionalised riot systems’ where violence is instigated, promoted and planned. He stressed on the organizational aspect of communal violence in India. While acknowledging humbly that his arguments would mean nothing new to the ordinary man he set out to use the metaphor of a play when talking about his work on the forms of violence such as riots, pogroms, massacres and violence. He identifies three phases in an organized working system of a riot:

1. The rehearsal phase: This Brass argues, goes on all the time and identifies this as the ‘quite period’, the ‘peaceful period’ or ‘the flat stable part of a graph in a statistician’s worksheet’ where one is unaware that the ‘work is going on all the time’.
2. The activation and enactment phase: This takes place when the time is ripe and has the necessary political context.
3. The Explanation and the interpretation phase: Most of the time Brass noted the explanations that are provided during this phase are false.

He identified the different ‘specialist’ roles played by different people in the different phases of this play. In the rehearsal stage the role of whom he calls ‘fire tenders’ to keep the cultural differences ripe, is key. The politicians are the key actors in all stages of the play but different types of politicians assume importance during the different stages of the play. He also said that the blame is usually cast on hooligans and criminals but said that equally and more importantly people like university professors take part and are equally to blame as well. Also is the role of whom he called ‘locators for sites for the riots to be staged’.

In the activation and enactment stage again politicians, speech makers, college students, lawyers (to release and defend perpetrators), senior politicians (to provide political cover to the perpetrators) are important. He identified in specific with a lot of importance the role of whom he called ‘communication specialists’ (poster plasters, vernacular media etc) at this stage. (Our local ‘communication specialists’ would be the NMAT and the PNM likes). In India the role of the partial, prejudiced anti-Muslim police force also is an important player at this stage. The ‘conversion specialists’, who for example convert processions and demonstrations into stages for violence, are also crucial to the success of this stage of activity.

At the explanation stage things like the commissions of inquiries sprout. (I couldn’t help identifying the recent commission of inquiry that has been set up by the GOSL with this explanation stage though this one doesn’t technically follow a riot). Social scientists are important for what he called the ‘blame displacement’ game.

Brass noted that he hasn’t done any significant work on civil war. But the relevance of his research in Sri Lanka is perhaps is in developing an understanding to the 58, 77 and especially the 83 riots.

Paul Brass’s approach to social analysis was refreshing and his arguments persuasive. There was perhaps nothing in his presentation that was ‘surprisingly’ and ‘astonishingly’ new, but gave a good conceptual framework from which one could think about the problem of collective violence. The arrogance that he displayed when commenting about people whom he disagreed with, amused me. He said that ‘wise’ people always critiqued him about not ‘defining’ terms such as riots and pogroms. He was against defining and labeling and said that this was not natural science for you to name and define objects and substance, but an area of study where you deal with people who constantly think and change. He noted that one man’s riot is one man’s pogrom and perhaps to another a massacre.

Critique of civil society and the ‘civic engagement theory’
What was very interesting was Brass’s highly critical counter to the ‘civic engagement theory’ floated by people like Prof. Varshney. Though he mentioned this in passing without referring to Varshney during his presentation, during the question time he was asked to elaborate.

He had some very valid points which make a contribution to the debate on the question as to how much civil society work can help in preventing and managing conflicts. He made it explicit that he hates the term ‘civil society’ (so does he hate the word ‘democracy’!!). He was of the opinion that theories like civic engagement might be relevant for countries like the US where big bar associations, big interest groups have some consistent and continued influence on the political system. In countries like India there are big associations that do involve the Hindus and Muslims where exchanging greetings between Id and Diwali is made possible. These are not enough to prevent conflict and all the good work that you do can be all undone in a minute or two by politics accompanied by power. These ties and relationships are broken when political movements arise with ferocity, he explained. He criticized the work of Varshney as having no reliable evidence through ethnographical research or democracy.

Brass also mentioned in passing, things that I had read about on India, about how the hierarchy in the political system in India dominated at the top by the high castes is being replaced with by people from the middle castes. He attributed the reasoning to neo liberalism as practiced in India for the past 10-15 years in which the higher castes are increasingly seeking positions in the new power systems dominated by Global Corporations moving away from the traditional spaces of power. He also noted as to how the Communist party led Governments in West Bengal and Kerala have been largely successful in keeping away religious riots from their states. But he was careful and repeated himself when he tried to clarify that he was not a Communist!! But one also needs to keep in mind, reminded by the developments in West Bengal in the past week or so, where local villagers in Nadigram are resisting the (West Bengal) Government’s plan to take away their lands under the guise of the ‘Special Economic Zones for development’ plan and the subsequent violent clashes between the ‘Communist’ Govt and the villagers. I feel that ‘economic riots’ will see the rise in India (with the upsurge in neo-liberal policies) already being manifested through the growing Naxalite movement in the country. Though this was lightly touched upon it would have been interesting to know more of Brass’s response to this development.

‘Grey’ gatherings; where are the young?
I will end this rather lengthy post with this note that I was concerned to see the amount of grey on most of the participants’ hair and wondered where the young intellects in the country are? I also wonder why people like Brass can’t be invited to speak to our students at our universities. In my faculty we hardly have guest lectures. We hear in the newspapers through the hyperactive work of our NGOs the visit of many reputed scholars to the country. Why can’t they be brought into contact with the intellectuals, decision and policy makers of our future? If such academic activities are not possible in our universities how better are they than our secondary schools? At the same time are our youth really interested in these sorts of activities? I have heard very brilliant colleagues of mine expressing with disgust how fed up they are with these type of activities because of the frustration they have with the local civil society groups’ very limited capacity to impact on our political process, culture and system. The question they ask is: “What do you want us to do by getting involved in these activities? Write papers and get invited for conferences?!!” We are definitely in a rather complex vicious circle.

www.paulbrass.com Some of his work is available on this website of his.

GOSL 'Sympathisers' and their response to attributions of Human Rights Violations on the GOSL

This post is in response to the debate on Groundviews based on a post by Indi. (http://www.groundviews.org/2007/03/13/significant-other/#more-311) Indi’s post is in response to an article by Bandula Jayasekera’s in the Daily News titled "Go Tell the LTTE" (http://www.dailynews.lk/2007/03/12/news05.asp)


The "Govt sympathizers'" response to allegations of human rights violations is to attack the identity of the persons and say that you are no better. So when the US or the UK Governments talk about the deteriorating human rights standards in the country the Govt sympathizers' response is: "You are no better. You have no right to talk. Look at what you are doing in Iraq". The objective is the elevation sought to be morally superior to these countries. This is their way of responding to HR allegations. To me this type of argument is very much the same as "if you can do it, we also can do it". Tacitly they are agreeing that we are no better than the UK or the US as with regards to these countries handling of the human rights situation in Iraq. They would even say “Your war on terror has some unfortunate consequences. Our war on terror also has some unfortunate consequences”. But I do agree that countries like the US and the UK have long lost their credibility to talk about other countries’ human rights records.

The response that the GOSL sympathizers provide to the civil society groups is by linking them to the LTTE. (Again, as I see it, seeking to elevate them to this ‘morally superior level’). The new terminology 'Sinhala Kottiya' is devastating. “All those criticizing the GOSL of human rights violations are against the war and hence supporters of the LTTE” – This is the Governments and their sympathizers’ very simple logic.

Similarly, “You don’t criticize the LTTE enough and hence you must be an LTTE sympathizer”. Without answering appropriately allegations of HR violations that are being attributed to them, the GOSL and its sympathizers by engaging in this mud slinging, inadvertently are saying that the Govt is no better than the LTTE when it comes to human rights violations. These arguments appear to me that these people are willing to give ‘parity of status’ to the LTTE with the GOSL when it comes to human rights violations!!

The “Go to Killinochchi” and “Tell Killinochchi” argument does have some substance in it. It poses the difficult question of how civil society groups can independently work within an environment where non state armed actors prevail.

That we have the best combination in the form of the President, Gottabayah and the Army commander is a comment that infuriates me. Best combination for whom? For those who have been 'liberated' from Vaharai? For those who have been displaced? For those who have been abducted and disappeared? Bandula dismisses the problem of abductions as a negligible problem that shouldn’t attract our attention given the exuberant patriotism that is manifested in this trio. How low will the state media bend to please people whom they consider their 'bosses'? (Bandula Jayasekera is by the way the Editor of Daily News)

Battle to 'clear' the East

The official position is that the Sri Lankan Government is still committed to the MoU (ceasefire agreement). But the Government seems to have no problems in undertaking 'clearing activities' such as in Vaharai despite the ceasefire being in place. Why this hypocrisy? Tearing up the Ceasefire MoU will not be easy like tearing up the MoU with the UNP I suppose. Having a ceasefire agreement 'officially' in place and uttering the verbal mantra now and then that 'the Government is committed to a peaceful solution to the ethnic conflict'; that 'the Government renews its call for peace talks' is enough to appease the donor and international community. Plus if you say that the war that you are waging is 'a war against terrorism' then countries like the USA and its ambassador cannot say anything much after that. This is what happened in the Galle development Forum.

I do not here any more about the SLMM in the news. About their opinion on whether a particular incident has violated the MoU or not and the rest! The best that Norway can do i suppose at this moment, to save its reputation (if there's anything left of it), is to pull out from the 'Peace' process and to pull out the SLMM as well. Any logical person/entity would do that. Without doing this the SLMM has forced itself to listen to the hate speech from the Government and its peace secretariat that it is not properly doing its job, that it is not working in the North East and so on. I'm sure the LTTE is also blowing hot and cold on the SLMM.

The East is being 'cleared' and people are being 'liberated' from the hands of terrorists using a former terrorist - 'Karuna', now a 'democrat' of reputation who has joined 'mainstream democracy' with a political office even in the capital city. There was no pre-condition that he had to 'lay down arms' before joining mainstream democracy. The Government has taken it as practice to defend Karuna where and when possible as was seen in its response to the Rock report and the Human Rights Watch report. If my memory serves me right i remember seeing a posting of the Karuna group's press release denying involvement in child conscription on the Government peace secretariat website sometime recently.

The concern about politics in the East has traditionally been with regard to accommodating Muslim and Sinhala Minorities living in this province, especially the fear of excessive Tamil domination in the case of a merged North and East province. But now nobody seems to be bothered about this. The talk is about giving Karuna control in the East to neutralise Prabah in the North. The fate of the Muslims and Sinhalese is not much talked about. (Afterall the Muslim MPs are busy organising hartals in Amparai complaining that they have not been offered a ministerial post*). Such are the dictates of so called 'military reality' on the politics of this country. I have painfully in the recent past read articles written by Dayan Jayatilleke suggesting that its time that Karuna be fully be used to confront Prabah and that the conflict in the country be shifted to be one between the Eastren Tamils and the Northern Tamils so as to take way the focus on the conflict between the Sinhala and Tamil communities.

Let the 'liberation' and 'clearing' continue!!

*(My referrence is to MP Nijamudheen. Following the hartal H.E. has promised him a ministerial portfolio as well. One more Nation Building Ministry it can be. That will make it 5!)

North East de-merger petitioners support the ‘de-merger’ of the Tamil nation from the Sri Lankan state?

I am one among many Tamils if not all Tamils who have been angered by the judgment in the de-merger case. It is my opinion as a law student that the judgment is flawed in many respects and as a Sri Lankan Tamil consider it to be the last nail in the coffin with regards to the minorities’ confidence in the impartiality and neutrality of our judicial system especially the Supreme Court 's capability to deal with politically sensitive issues relating to the conflict.

Here on this post I would like to comment on just one argument that was brought forward by the distinguished lawyers HL De Silva and Gomin Dayasri in their submissions to the court.

The lawyers in their petition submitted that ‘the merger (of the North and East) would result in the Muslim and Sinhala communities in the Eastern Province being permanently subjugated to a minority, which situation would be exacerbated by the process of ethnic cleansing carried out by the Tamil militants’.

If this was the reason for the need for the de-merger it may also be argued with the same logical reference that, given that the Tamils constitute a nation of their own and that they are minority in the Sri Lankan state and using the same dicta used by the petitioners, they have been ‘permanently subjugated to a minority’ within the Sri Lankan state, the Tamil nation should be de-merged from the Sri Lankan state. The petitioners who are contended in using the term ‘ethnic cleansing’ to the injustice meted out to the Muslims in the Eastern province I urge should be willing to accept that the Tamils were also subject to ethnic cleansing by the Sri Lankan armed forces in the past and one is tempted to ask whether the same argument can be used to argue for a ‘de-merger’ of the Tamil Nation from the Sri Lankan state? Hence to follow the same argument of the JVP lawyers in the case would lead us to justify a separate state for the Sri Lankan Tamils.

My contention is that the argument for a united Sri Lanka stems from emotional political reasoning from the majority community. Those who emphasise the need to stick to a united country should also remember that the argument for a traditional homeland from the Tamil people is one that stems from a history of marginalization through ethnic colonization in areas that Tamil people historically habitate. All Tamil parties in 1985 enunciated this principle without any reservations in a univocal voice at the Thimpu talks. This politically sensitive issue dear to the political aspirations of the Tamil people has been unilaterally set aside by the Supreme Court in this case.

I still believe that humans are inherently good and hence that coexistence and cohabitation of the different communities is possible. The judgment adds one more episode in contemporary history which continues to negate this belief that I hold.

A Politicised Human Rights Commission ?

Today's Daily News (11 October 2006) has an article on a report by the Human Rights Commission on the Sencholai attack by the SLAF. (the full text of the article follows this post).

According to the article the report has found that 'Sencholai' was actually a military training base and that all inmates of the centre were LTTE child brigade members being trained. The last sentence of the Daily News article is also interesting - reporting that SLMM has indicated that its findings may not be the same as the HRC's findings. It is not my intention to argue that Sencholai was not a military training base. I am also strongly opposed to the recruitment of child soldiers by the LTTE. What I am concerned of is whether the present Human Rights Commission is an apolitical body that can do justice to its purpose of existence. If the report contains nothing else but only the 'finding' that Sencholai was a military base and if it does not even condemn the killings for the fact that those killed were children, then one is forced to question the objectivity of HRC. (this judgment of mine is anyway based on what the Daily News has chosen to report on). Given that the issue is highly politicised I do not know whether it is the HRC which should be mandated to investigate the matter in terms of identification of the place of attack - ‘Sencholai’.

By way of comparision to the earlier Human Rights Commission headed by Dr. Radhika Coomaraswamy i would claim that under Dr. Coomaraswamy HRC was largely apolitical and was able to keep political influence out of the workings of the commission.

The President appointed the Human Rights Commission surpassing the Constitutional Council. All those who claimed and supported the argument that the appointments by the President were done in good spirit so that important public bodies do not become defunct and that was in exercise based on a positivist understanding of law, should now answer the question as to whether this was the actual motive behind these extra constitutional appointments. (There are many other arguments as to why this was not that actual objective that MR entertained when he made these appointments)

The main objective of establishing the Constitutional Council was to depoliticise some of the important public institutions and also through that to increase the confidence of the minorities in their functioning.

For all those who are in favour of a constitutional reforms based political solution to the ethnic conflict this comes as a terrible blow. You might have constitutional safeguards but they nevertheless may be violated and our judiciary will stand to witness it silently. The predicament of the country is such!!

The Daily News Article as found at http://www.dailynews.lk/.
LTTE exploiting education system to recruit children - HRC
Manjula Fernando
COLOMBO: Following an in-depth inquiry, the Human Rights Commission (HRC) in their report has ruled that the Sencholai Camp was in fact an LTTE recruitment station and the 500 children and young adults had been receiving motivation training on the day of aerial attacks.
Based on their findings the HRC calls for a zero tolerance approach to child recruitment while setting demobilisation of child combatants as a pre-condition in the peace process.
The HRC report pointed out that their evidence proves the State supported education system is exploited by the LTTE for child recruitment and combatant training as it provides a ready made 'pool' of vulnerable children.
Children and young adults in their teens had been forced to attend the camp by the LTTE, threatening deprivation of certain 'training cards' which permit them to move freely to attend tuition classes.
The report maintained that the participants had also received basic weapons training.
Based on evidence of education authorities, First Aid Training organisations present in the area and the statements of the three injured girls from the camp, the HRC's regional office has come to this conclusion.
In response to the HRC's inquiries the St.John Ambulance Association has related that they were unaware of any first aid training on the particular dates at the site, contrary to the LTTE claims.
The regional education authorities and the Examinations Commissioner has confirmed that such a large gathering would not have been permitted by them for Advanced Level students who are required to fulfil 80 per cent attendance to sit for exam.
Meanwhile, SLMM spokesman Thorffinur Omarsson said their report on the Sencholai camp, which is to be released 'very soon', will not be on the same line as the HRC findings.