A Chilcot Findings & Lessons For Sri Lanka
By Arun Kumaresan –July 16, 2016
Arun Kumaresan – Air Vice Marshal (Ret’d)
A Chilcot findings and Lessons for Sri Lanka – lack of accountability process and normalization of violence and utter impunity
Chilcot Inquiry named after its chairman, Sir John Chilcot, also commonly known as Iraq inquiry was tasked inquire into the role of Britain in the Iraq War. The inquiry was announced on June 2009 by the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The committee had broad terms of reference to consider Britain’s involvement in Iraq between mid-2001 and July 2009. It covered the events leading to the conflict, the subsequent military action and more impotently its aftermath with the purpose to establish the way decisions were made both by the political and the military leadership It was also tasked to determine what happened and to identify lessons to ensure that in a similar situation in future.
British media channels highlighted the purpose of this inquiry was to seek justice for the unfortunate loss of lives of 200 odd British soldiers who had made the supreme sacrifice during the US led invasion to Iraq. They wanted to know the rationale behind Tony Blair’s government committed its’ troops.
This has relevance in post-independence Sri Lankan history that was characterized by turn of events leading to spilling of blood and loss of life in violent circumstances. We witnessed three major ethnic riots; two Marxist led revolutions and the 30 plus years of Tamil militancy. All had one thing in common. Tens of thousands of military and police personal; tens of thousands of revolutionaries and militants; tens of thousands of civilian who were either caught in between, on suspicion or in the rage and emotions both in and outside the area of direct battle; – lost their lives. They had one thing in common of being SRI LANKANS.
Nationalistic fundamentalism or Ideological extremism may it be; the instruments used to establish their respective end points represented violent barbarism. Both state and non state apparatus need to take equal blame for this anarchical approach. State took cover under perceived legitimacy to govern and non state entities took cover under the justification of perceived need of nationalistic demand or based it on an ideological necessity.
The foundation towards accepting criminal behavior as a norm commenced in 1958 during the communal disturbances. Going even by the conservative estimates 300 to 500 civilians were killed and many wounded. It was said, nearly 70 percent killed were Tamils and corresponding balance were Sinhalese. Those who were the cause for this death and injury are known in legal parlance as “Criminals”. They were never brought to justice (the prosecutions were symbolic and limited to figures in single digits). Nationalistic instincts for both Sinhala and Tamil sides gave these criminals room and space to cover their criminal conduct as a nationalistic necessity and they were allowed to remain in the society. Then leaders from both sides for the first time laid the foundation to immune the Sri Lankan society to invariably accept some forms of crimes carried out in the name of race. The political leaders were never made accountable for both their actions and inactions.
