Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Monday, March 25, 2013
Video: Yashwant Sinha Speech On The Plights Of Tamil In Sri Lanka
Loksabha
: BJP leader Shri Yashwant Sinha’s speech on the plights of Tamil in Sri Lanka
: 07.03.2013
- Sinhala Ravaya storms Buddhist, Christian religious centres- Sunday, March 24, 2013
Nilushi, a devout Buddhist, was threatened with violence
And then they went for the Christians – and even the Buddhists. A new group called the Sinhala Ravaya is making their presence felt across the island, carrying out systematic attacks on what they deem to be illegal places of worship.
On Monday (18) members of this new group laid siege to the home of a Christian pastor, threatening his family and demanding that religious services cease. Last Friday (15) members of the Sinhala Ravaya stormed into a house in Walauwatta, Nawala, throwing religious texts on the floor and accusing the residents of carrying out unethical religious conversions.
Terror in Nawala
It was around 7:30 on Friday night when the little wooden hut in Walauwatta, where the couple Vincent and Nilushi Rasika reside, was subject to a sudden intrusion of people, who materialized as if out of thin air.
The hut was not just a residence – it was considered a place of healing. Every week, especially on Wednesdays and Saturdays, crowds of people came to this little unassuming hut to offer prayers for a number of ailments, believing they could be healed. Many of them continued visiting even after being healed to offer bodhi puja in the evenings. The hut itself has a Buddha statue prominently displayed on a pedestal in the centre of the room, but it also has statues of Jesus Christ, Mother Mary, Sai Baba and several Hindu deities, including Sarasvati and Vishnu.
The centre looks like an ordinary shack from the outside
The reason for this, Nilushi explains, is that many of the people who visit are of different religions, and they feel they should not turn people away simply because they have different beliefs.
Nilushi encountered a crowd of around 50 people on Friday night, five of whom were monks. They arrived in a convoy of three vans and four three-wheelers and claimed to be from the Sinhala Ravaya group. “They came shouting, looking for the children,” Nilushi recalled. The crowd accused Nilushi and Vincent Imaduwa (Nilushi’s father) who were both at the centre at the time, of harbouring children and selling them. “We have children of our own. We would never do such a thing,” Nilushi said. The group had then asked for their IDs, which Nilushi had refused to provide. “We said we would only give our IDs to police dressed in uniform,” she explained. They had then begun rifling through the house, making off with some money, some of the young daughter’s earrings and even a CD of her cartoons, as well as one or two of the religious statues. The Buddhist flag, which was on the wall, was torn down, books of religious texts thrown on the floor.
Worst of all, the men kept trying to assault Nilushi, raising their hands to hit her while her terrified daughter screamed helplessly in the background. It was all caught on tape by a reporter from a private TV news station, who later confirmed that the mob did get unruly and attempt to assault Nilushi. Nilushi’s and Vincent’s attempts to reason with the mob went unheard. Vincent, too, was knocked around and is in pain today – leaning on his walking stick. He has just got back from the hospital, where his hip was bandaged.
Later on, some of the group returned and tried to rearrange the statues, taking pictures all the while. “We told them, please don’t do that. That’s not how they were,” Nilushi said. “It is not we who should be arrested, but the monks. They did not even allow us to speak,” Vincent said. Most ironic of all is the fact that Nilushi’s family are devout Buddhists – so much so that they are strictly vegetarian. “We don’t bother anyone, and we don’t do any harm,” they said. They believe that the group acted on a false tipoff.
Nilushi said she is afraid to be alone at the small house during the day, especially when she hears visitors.
Welikada Police said the incident in Nawala was only a small fracas, nothing to worry about. The Welikada Police had recorded statements from the people of Sinhala Ravaya, and said Nilushi had not been assaulted, even though there was clear evidence on tape of the mob attempting to hit her. The monks’ statement had merely said that the group had gone to the house to inspect it, which the family had not allowed them to do, and there had been an angry exchange. The monks had then said that the family shouldn’t be displaying different religious statues together, at which point they had explained that it was part of a religious ritual. However, the situation had soon been resolved, the Welikada OIC said.
It might be resolved on paper, but the residents of the religious centre want their stolen statue back, and are still in shock over what has happened. ‘Never mind what happened here…Tell everyone what a service we do to the community,” Sampath, Nilushi’s husband said. He added that the only thing he wanted returned was the statue, which the group had taken with them.
Pastor Pradeep Kumara’s house in Katuwana, Weeraketiya was attacked last week – but this isn’t the first time there have been clashes between him and a group of monks. On December 9, a group led by Ven. Omalpe Sobitha Thera of the JHU, and a few others attacked his church, while around 75 people were worshipping there. The previous day, this group had threatened the pastor, saying “You can’t have a prayer centre here. Close it down.” Kumara said he has video evidence of this incident.
At around 9:45 am the next day, the group returned and attacked the building, damaging vehicles, equipment and furniture, and defacing a statue of Jesus Christ. “Leave this place or be killed,” the pastor was told. Undeterred, Kumara complained to the police, and even filed a petition at the Supreme Court.
The Court gave leave for the worship centre to continue holding services and also ordered police protection at the place.
The case was taken up again this week, and once again the Supreme Court ordered that the worship centre continue operating, although the final judgment has not yet been passed.
The case was taken up again this week, and once again the Supreme Court ordered that the worship centre continue operating, although the final judgment has not yet been passed.
Kumara was in Colombo when the Sinhala Ravaya mob attacked – it was his wife and children who bore the brunt of it. Kumara’s wife was returning with their children (she had gone out to buy medicine, for a child who was sick) when she saw a group had forced the gate open and had broken into the premises. They were in the process of damaging the property. When they saw Kumara’s wife approaching, they had threatened her, causing her to call her husband. In a panic, Kumara called the police. Four constables arrived, but could not control the angry mob. Eventually, STF personnel were also called to the scene.
By this time, Kumara’s wife was inside the house with the children, but the pastor feared greatly for their safety as the group continued to damage the property outside the house. They even scolded the children in abusive language, pastor Kumara said. The incident took place between 5 pm and 8:30 pm, and the crowd only left once they had forced Kumara’s wife to promise there would be no more worship sessions conducted at the house.
Kumara further said that though he heard the Sinhala Ravaya were behind the attack, he also believed that the group had gotten their strength and inspiration from the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) group.
The Police Media Unit confirmed that a group including monks (they were unsure from which temple the monks were from) had stormed the pastor’s premises in Weeraketiya and added that police had tried to stop them.
It is uncertain where the Sinhala Ravaya group sprung up from. Executive Committee member of the Bodu Bala Sena, Dilantha Withanage, said the group is not officially connected with them in any way. He added that he had heard many stories of illegal and unethical conversions, and said if the organizations targeted were operating legally, the Bodu Bala Sena would not support attacks on them. “We have no official links with the Sinhala Ravaya. Some people on Facebook have put up posters congratulating both of us together… but this is to create the illusion that we are working closely with them. This is not so,” Withanage said.
Whatever their origins, the group has set a disturbing trend of self-appointing themselves as unofficial police officers – conducting ‘raids’ and even demanding identification as if they were from the armed forces. What’s more, this week’s attacks have even been carried out against devout Buddhists who were not carrying out religious conversions as they initially assumed.
The actions of the Sinhala Ravaya are in jarring contradiction to a religion which promotes peace and tolerance – even stooping to bullying and terrifying young children.
Human
Rights Council Resolution on Sri Lanka Crimes
Ron Ridenour Salem-News.com-Mar-21-2013
Ron Ridenour Salem-News.com-Mar-21-2013
More
of the same nonsense causes huge protests.
 |
(GENEVA)
- United Nation’s Human Rights Council’s passed a resolution on March 21, the
third in four years, concerning Sri Lanka’s conduct towards Tamils. The vote was
25 for, 13 against with eight abstentions. Those opposed rejected any criticism
of Sri Lanka as “foreign meddling”. (1)
The
US-led resolution A/HRC/22/L.1 "Promoting Reconciliation and Accountability in
Sri Lanka" “noted” that the National Action Plan put forward by Sri Lanka to
implement the recommendations made in its own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation
Commission (LLRC) “does not adequately address serious violations of
international humanitarian law.”
Sri
Lanka’s government is then called upon to conduct an "independent and credible"
investigation into allegations of human rights violations.
One
paragraph goes a bit further than the previous US-led resolution last year. It
expresses “concern at the continuing reports of violations of human rights in
Sri Lanka, including enforced disappearances, extra-judicial killings, torture
and violations of the rights of expression, association and peaceful assembly,
as well as intimidation of and reprisals against human rights defenders, members
of civil society and journalists, threats to judicial independence and the rule
of law, and discrimination on the basis of religion and belief.” (2)
 |
While
the US resolution also stated that Sri Lanka’s government (GoSL) has failed to
devolve political authority to Tamils, it expressed thanks for having
facilitated “the visit of a technical mission from the Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.” It “notes” the High Commissioner’s
“call for an independent and credible international investigation into alleged
violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian
law,” without suggesting such itself. No remedies are demanded. The resolution
simply concludes by suggesting further reports “monitoring progress”.
No more white-wash
A
day before the vote, the greatest pro-Tamil protest in years took place with
upwards of one million people in India’s state Tamil Nadu. They denounced the
US-led resolution as “ineffectual” for calling upon the Sri Lanka government to
investigate itself. Protestors demanded that the GoSL be investigated by an
independent international body for its war crimes and genocide against the Tamil
people.
Varieties of
colorful actions, including civil disobedience, occurred in several Tamil Nadu
cities and schools. People denounced the “empty resolution further diluted by
New Delhi.” They called for a UN plebiscite for Tamils in the north of Sri
Lanka. (3)
For the first time
since the end of the civil war, significant numbers of Tamils have publicly
protested the US for meaningless “slaps on the wrist”. Thousands of Tamils in
many countries in the Diaspora demonstrated against the resolution, burning it
before the US embassy in several cities. Protestors now view the US as actually
“facilitating the agenda of the genocidal state”.
Critics assert that
the US and Europe are not seriously advancing the rights of Tamils nor actually
sanctioning GoSL for its brutal war crimes, and certainly not its 65 year-long
genocide against the minority Tamils. They point out that the US, its side-kick
Israel and NATO countries, always aided the Sri Lankan government.
The Western powers
provided Sri Lanka’s military with weaponry, money, counter-intelligence, and
training to win the long war against Tamil nationhood. Then, since their mutual
victory, the Western axis criticizes the Asian government for having committed
excesses. This “human rights” approach is the best of all possible worlds for
Western dictates: world domination for the cause of humanity is what they say if
you read between the lips of communicators for globalization. (4)
 |
China, Russia, Iran,
India and Pakistan also militarily and economically assisted Sri Lankan
governments in avoiding federalism for the two peoples—majority Sinhalese and
minority Tamils—yet they did so without the hyperbole of “protecting human
rights”. Unfortunately, Cuba and its seven associates in the Latin
American-nation Bolivarian Alliance of the peoples of the Americas (ALBA) got
caught up in the geo-political game and supported Sri Lanka.
The two ALBA
countries on the Council, Ecuador and Venezuela, voted for Sri Lanka’s stance,
while six other Latin American countries voted to criticize it. The Africa and
Asian governments were divided in three ways. There was no obvious “first
world,” “third world” juxtaposition. (1)
The conciliatory
role India’s Congress party-led government plays to placate Sri Lanka with
massive economic aid, and by diluting the original draft of the both 2012 and
2013 resolutions, led the Tamil Nadu DMK (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagan) party to
withdraw its participation in the coalition UPA (United Progressive Alliance)
government. By losing 18 seats in the government, including the minority party’s
five ministers, Congress President Sonia Gandhi felt compelled to state that,
“We are fully committed to the cause of Lankan Tamils and an impartial inquiry
should happen into the allegations of atrocities against them.”
Apparently, at the
last minute, the weakened UPA government leadership tried to amend the final
draft with stronger words, according to the newspaper “The Hindu”.
However, DMK Chief
Muthuvel Karunanidhi said, “There were no strong words of censure against Sri
Lanka in that resolution, which indicated that there was no scope at all to
incorporate amendments suggested by the DMK like including the word
‘genocide’.”
 |
Karunanidhi said, on
March 19, this justified the decision to pull out of the government, which
forces the Congress party to rely even more so on opposition parties, in order
to continue to rule.
The new resolution
has not ceded to demands of human rights bodies and almost all Tamil political
parties and grass roots organizations for an independent international
investigation, which UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navaneetham Pillay
also asserts is necessary.
She has consistently
upheld the findings of the “Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts
on Accountability in Sri Lanka” delivered to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on
March 31, 2011.
“The Panel found
credible allegations associated with the final stages of the war. Between
September 2008 and 19 May 2009, the Sri Lanka Army advanced its military
campaign into the Vanni using large-scale and widespread shelling causing large
numbers of civilian deaths. This campaign constituted persecution of the
population of the Vanni. Around 330,000 civilians were trapped into an ever
decreasing area, fleeing the shelling but kept hostage by the LTTE [Liberation
Tigers of Tamil Eelam]. The Government sought to intimidate and silence the
media and other critics of the war through a variety of threats and actions,
including the use of white vans to abduct and to make people disappear.
 |
“The Government
shelled on a large scale in three consecutive No Fire Zones, where it had
encouraged the civilian population to concentrate, even after indicating that it
would cease the use of heavy weapons. It shelled the United Nations hub, food
distribution lines and near the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
ships that were coming to pick up the wounded and their relatives from the
beaches. It shelled in spite of its knowledge of the impact, provided by its own
intelligence systems and through notification by the United Nations, the ICRC
and others. Most civilian casualties in the final phases of the war were caused
by Government shelling.”
The new resolution
is virtually the same as the one put forth by the US last March when the HRC
made a shift from the pro-Sri Lanka resolution of May 2009. In March 2012, a
majority (24 for, 15 against and 8 abstentions) voted to criticize the Sri
Lankan government for “not adequately address[ing] serious allegations of
violations of international law” when conducting its final phases of war against
the liberation guerrilla army LTTE (Liberation Tigers for Tamil Eelam).
Nevertheless, the statement simply asked the government to investigate itself.
(5)
Despite the UN panel
of experts’ 214-page report and recommendations, and those of the High
Commissioner, no session of the Human Rights Council has discussed those
recommendations.
While US-NATO
conducts war crimes against several countries in the Middle East and Africa,
progressive governments in Latin America, along with Russia-China-Iran-Pakistan,
view the US role in Sri Lanka as hypocrisy. This motivates those governments to
back Sri Lanka as a “victim” of US-European meddling. In so doing, they are
silent about the crimes against the Tamil people.
Venezuela, a new
member on the HRC replacing Cuba, voted against the slap wrist resolution.
Parting from journalistic style, I would suggest that Venezuela, in the spirit
of its recently deceased leader, Hugo Chávez, would take the bull by the horns.
Take the moral, solidarity path and admit war crimes wherever they are committed
and oppose them. That goes for Sri Lanka, and it goes more so for the US-UK-NATO
axis. Publicly chastise Sri Lanka for its brutality, and then introduce a new
HRC resolution indicting the Western axis for the untold amount of human blood
and planet destruction it causes with its aggressive profit-grabbing wars.
 |
Future Actions
There is a shift in
the wind. Tamils are righteously upset with the US-UK axis. The multitude of
Tamil groups especially some international ones in the Diaspora, have relied
upon the axis to come to their aid. After four years of getting nowhere, great
numbers of Tamils are awakened.
Some pro-Tamils
groups are calling upon the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) to
prevent Sri Lanka being rewarded as planned by hosting the Commonwealth’s grand
summit this November.
The moderate Sri
Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice wrote: “If the Commonwealth continues as
usual then the Government of Sri Lanka will be able to use this to whitewash
their crimes, and derail the process of reconciliation. The cycle of violence
will continue.”
The group initiated
a petition to sign pressuring Commonwealth countries to follow “the Canadian
Prime Minister's example and announcing that if the summit happens then they
will not go.” (6)
The
group initiated a petition to sign pressuring Commonwealth countries to follow
“the Canadian Prime Minister's example and announcing that if the summit happens
then they will not go.” (6)
A more activist
movement is expected to grow now!
Lankan issue: An economic solution to a political problem
Once we bring the Lankans into our economic embrace we will be in a position to dominate their internal politics. And only then can we offer true protection to Tamils in Sri Lanka [ Images ], says M R Venkatesh.
March 25, 2013
The anger of the common man, especially the youth, in Tamil Nadu is palpable. Colleges are being shut down. Even school children are seen discussing the mess in Sri Lanka. Private conversations invariably veer to this colossal human tragedy. In more ways than one this rage is explainable. After all, what has happened in Sri Lanka is unacceptable, inhuman and absolutely deplorable.
Expectedly, the issue concerning Sri Lankan Tamils once again dominates the political discourse in the state. Once politicians, especially those from Tamil Nadu are involved; one can reasonably be assured that it will be nothing but an elaborate exercise in semantics. After all, when it comes to rhetoric and hogwash, probably politicians from my home state are second to none.
Remember, all this political posturing is not of recent origin. Most of us in Tamil Nadu have been witness to this filibuster for the past three decades. In the interregnum, not once, has one political party from Tamil Nadu come up with a practical solution to this imbroglio in the current geo-political context.
That explains why political parties were intent on inserting the G word [genocide] in the recent resolution passed by the United Nation Human Rights Commission, without realising its national and international ramifications. Importantly, those who insisted on such additions to the resolution were mysteriously silent when the actual genocide took place!
Or were they fasting after a sumptuous breakfast which ended well before lunch?
That is not all. Given the proximity of some politicians of the state with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, it would have been suicidal on their part to insist on an independent probe under the UN supervision. Likewise, charges that some intellectuals, NGOs, cinema producers and actors had links with the LTTE [ Images ] too could have come under intense scrutiny.
Possibly, given that development, many in Tamil Nadu would have ended with egg on their face. Mercifully we are saved of that ignominy.
UPA - Uttar Pradesh [ Images ] Alliance
Constructed with financial and technical assistance of Chinese, the Hambantota port is expected to give a fillip to the domestic economy there. The first phase of this project is also slated to provide bunkering, ship repair, ship building, and crew changes facilities. When completed, the port will be the biggest port constructed on land to date in the 21st century.
Readers may note that Hambantota is close to the Asian and European international shipping routes -- the Suez Canal and the Strait of Malacca. These routes through Hambantota are reportedly used by about 36,000 ships, including 4,500 oil tankers.
A leading maritime expert, Nuwan Peiris commented that this port is a conflict between “two Asian superpowers in Sri Lanka, namely China and India [ Images ], in a bid to gain supremacy in the case of the former, and a proxy-battle to maintain its natural defence-perimeter in the case of latter.”
According to him, Chinese involvement in this port project has given this battle a renewed intensity and forms the “core for geopolitical change in the South Asian landscape.”
If regional parties in Tamil Nadu are completely oblivious to the geo-political implications arising from this development, national parties too do not seem to have developed any strategic response. Interestingly, the charge is that political considerations of regional parties should not dictate foreign policies.
But what about economic policies and reforms? Remember, several UPA allies have successfully forestalled economic reforms for over a decade now. How is stalling economic reforms different from fashioning India’s foreign policy?
Or is foreign policy superior to domestic economic policy?
Whatever be it, let us not forget that the UPA [after the withdrawal of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam [ Images ]] is at best a coalition of regional parties from Uttar Pradesh. And given this development, the argument that regional parties should not meddle much less disturb “national foreign policy consensus” is simply unacceptable.
The Grand Plan
Those who believe that UPA would interfere in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka and create an independent Ealam -- a separate nation for Sri Lankan Tamils -- are barking up the wrong tree. In fact those who promise Ealam are continuously doing a great disservice to the Sri Lankan Tamils. Fascinatingly, according to some analysts, a majority Tamils there do not want a separate Ealam.
People in Tamil Nadu fail to realise that a government that reneged on its promise to bifurcate Andhra Pradesh a few years ago cannot be trusted to do something as dramatic as Indira Gandhi [ Images ] did to East Pakistan that lead to the creation of Bangladesh.
But if a political solution is impossible that does not mean India should not think of alternatives. How about an economic solution that includes trade, tourism and telecommunications?
For instance, separated by the Palk Straits, the distance between Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka is not more than a few kilometers. Yet phone calls between Sri Lanka and India are subjected to international call charges. Obviously this can be converted into local tariffs. Simultaneously, both sides can waive visa requirement for nationals travelling between the two countries.
All these are possible initiatives at the central government level.
The state government in turn should offer benefits on local levies in Tamil Nadu for investment made in Tamil speaking areas of Sri Lanka by Indian business houses. Such investment would offer job opportunities to the beleaguered Tamils. Crucially, an investment by Tatas, Ambanis or for that matter any Indian business house will offer physical protection unmatched by even our army.
That takes me to Hambantota. The Chinese presence is reality that cannot be wished away. Ideally political parties from Tamil Nadu should have suggested, organised and executed this project. But when are our political parties known for such strategic thinking?
Simply put we remained inactive as Sri Lankans planned to develop a port in Hambantota. Then as Chinese move to fill the vacuum caused by our inaction, we lamented. Now using the Chinese presence, we want to remain indolent. Amusingly all this is passed off as foreign policy!
Yet all is not lost. The Hambantota port is built to Chinese scales. That implies that the capacity of the port is gargantuan. Obviously, the port is craving for huge exports to be economical and operationally efficient. The Sri Lankan economy is eminently incapable of supporting this port to its full capacity.
That brings India, especially Tamil Nadu with her close proximity to Sri Lanka, into the picture. Political parties, especially those in Tamil Nadu, must learn strategically to reposition India. For starters we must understand the futility of pursuing the Sethu Samudram project that seeks to carve a sea route by a silly idea of dredging the high seas. This as we all know is a non-starter.
At the same time we must develop the Tuticorin port to be a feeder port to Hambantota, which as already pointed out is developing into a giant international trans-shipment facility. That would make the Sri Lankan dependent on India to run this facility. From a vantage point, India could regain the toe-hold that it lost to the Chinese during the development of this port.
Put bluntly, it would be Sri Lankan port built by Chinese [with their money, labour and technology] for our use! Can something be any better? An Indian commercial interest in this port would be an indirect incentive to the Sinhalese majority to behave with the minority Tamils in Sri Lanka.
But is this arrangement enough? Obviously the answer is no. India must now leverage this idea. A dedicated freight corridor from Bangalore [which can be extended up north to Nagpur and beyond] to Tuticorin passing through Salem [which must be developed into a freight hub], Trichy and Madurai [ Images ] is the next obvious step.
This must be followed by linking the unused Salem airport to an air strip in Hambantota to airlift perishables. If the Chinese have built a port we must respond with an airport and link it to Salem. Don’t we?
Why Salem? After all Salem is one of the most backward districts of Tamil Nadu. Yet it is centrally and hence ideally located for this project. Several export clusters fall within its proximity. This would at once give a fillip to the state’s economy. Rough calculations indicate that the incremental export potential is above $15 billion per year.
A dedicated freight corridor to Tuticorin is a viable alternative to the failed Sethu Samudram project. A central government that was ready to put billions on this unviable project must find resources for a freight corridor. Significantly, that would improve our infrastructure, put the Tamil Nadu economy into a higher growth trajectory and offer employment opportunities to locals.
This idea seamlessly coalesces with India’s needs with the facility already available at Sri Lanka. Once we bring the Lankans into our economic embrace we will be in a position to dominate their internal politics. And only then can we offer true protection to Tamils in Sri Lanka.
Till such time it will be nothing but useless rhetoric by our silly politicians.
M R Venkatesh is a Chennai-based chartered accountant. Comments can be sent to mrv@mrv.net.in
New US Secretary of State responsible for Geneva injustice: Boyle
[TamilNet, Sunday, 24 March 2013, 15:15 GMT]
The New US Secretary of State John Kerry, who assumed office on 1 Feb 2013, was the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations in 2009 that brought out a report advising the USA to help Sri Lanka’s military without insisting on political solutions. Finding a clear link between the 2009 Kerry Report and Kerry’s State Department, US Professor of Law, Francis A Boyle said, "The callous and callow Kerry Report came right after the GOSL genocidal massacre of about 100,000 Tamils in Vanni, recommending that the United States government abandon all principles and instead aid and abet the continued GOSL repression and persecution of the Tamils. That is precisely the policy we now see in operation with Kerry as U.S. Secretary of State. This latest UNHRC Resolution sponsored by Kerry’s State Department and acting pursuant to his instructions proves it. Kerry should be fired," said Boyle. 
Prof. Francis A. Boyle, University of Illinois College of Law
 US-Kerry press release on Genevaresolution on Sri Lanka |
US should focus on economy and security of the island instead of humanitarian considerations, IDPs and civil society; should also invest in Sinhalese parts of the country instead of just focusing on North and East; should resume training of Sri Lankan military officials to ensure human rights in future operations as well as to build critical relationships and implied that US should not emphasize on political reform as a condition to assistance, bringing rift in US- Sri Lanka relations making the latter to align with countries of alternative model of development.
John Kerry, US Secretary of State
Rights group slammed the contents of 2009 Kerry report. "Maybe the people who wrote the report don’t know anything about Sri Lanka or maybe they’re of the school that says that everything on the planet is strategic," said Brad Adams, Asia director for Human Rights Watch. "The huge human-rights and humanitarian problems that continue there are not small; they’re central to any principled diplomatic engagement with Sri Lanka at this point. So [the notion] that we are in a competition with China, which I think is driving this, is misplaced," Adams further said.
In this context, the Secretary of State Kerry's statement on the UNHCR resolution has dismayed Tamil diaspora circles over the possible ominous policy evolution in a downward direction as regards Tamils' future welfare, and on the possible adverse impact to the Tamil struggle seeking justice, accountability, and assertion of political and fundamental rights.
"That statement by the Sri Lankan military raises the scepticism of many that the government is prepared to do its own investigation"
By Saroj Pathirana
BBC Sinhala service-2013 මාර්à¶ු 24
The US has warned that it will be forced to “look into international mechanism” to investigate alleged war crimes if Sri Lanka government fails to conduct its own “independent and credible” inquiry.
In an exclusive interview with BBC Sinhala service, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Robert Blake insisted that it is now for the Sri Lanka government to prove that it is genuine in investigating allegations of serious rights violations during the last phase of the conflict with Tamil Tigers.
He was commenting after the UN Human Rights Council adopted a US-sponsored resolution that calls for an “independent, credible investigation,” into alleged violations of international law.
“We very much hope that Sri Lanka will undertake meaningful action,” Mr Blake told the BBC.
“But of course we have always said that if Sri Lanka is either unwilling or unable to do so, then the international community will be forced to look into international mechanism,” he said.
Civilian casualties
He says that the US is “disappointed” that Sri Lanka military has cleared armed forces for any civilian casualties.
“And that statement by the Sri Lankan military raises the scepticism of many that the government is prepared to do its own investigation so again I think it is really important for the government to address that scepticism head on and come out with its own independent, credible investigation,” Mr Blake told BBC Sinhala.
While one of the earlier draft resolutions, seen by the BBC, called for an “unfettered access” for the UN special procedures to Sri Lanka in specific fields, the adopted resolution only mentions “provide access” and has deleted the reference to areas of special interest.
But Mr Blake insists the adopted version is not a toned down one from the original draft.
“Obviously any access we would insist on would be unfettered access,” he said, adding that the resolution “underlines the importance of Sri Lanka now taking meaningful action on reconciliation and accountability,” to achieve “peace and prosperity” on the island nation.
While India voted with the US for the resolution, Pakistan strongly opposed.
'Agenda other than human rights'
The United States has vetoed a last minute attempt by the India to introduce a tough amendment to the resolution seeking an international mechanism, according to Hindu newspaper.
The US Assistant Secretary of State refused to elaborate on India’s role but said the US engaged with India “very closely throughout the process” and welcomed some amendments suggested by India.
Addressing the UNHRC session in Geneva, Sri Lanka’s special envoy on human rights Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, accused those behind the resolution of “pursuing an agenda other than human rights.”
Admitting that the US has an “important strategic interest” in the region, Mr Blake says it’s agenda on Sri Lanka is to “achieve peace, reconciliation and accountability on the island.”
“We also want to continue to build the relationship with the Sri Lankan people. We have no other agenda other than that,” he says.
Meanwhile another government minister, Dalas Alahapperuma, has accused the international community of “trying to divide Sri Lanka through the UN.” But Mr. Blake disagrees.
“Well I would say the opposite. I would say the United States and the international community are trying to reunite the country and that the way to do so again is to achieve reconciliation and to address human rights abuses that continue to take place and to move forward expeditiously on accountability. And that will help to unifying the island’s communities,” he said.
Some other analysts are of the opinion that it too early to impress upon accountability on Sri Lanka. It took more than 30 years, they say, to investigate war crimes committed in Vietnam, for example.
LTTE atrocities
Mr Blake admits that it will take a long time to investigate alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka.
“What we are seeking now, is just prove and indication from the Sri Lankan government that they are prepared to undertake a serious investigation of their own. Thus far we haven’t seen any indication of that.”
The US ambassador to Sri Lanka during the height of the war admitted that the US were aware of mounting civilian casualties, as revealed by Wikileaks, but rejected accusations that international community failed its duty to protect civilians in Sri Lanka.
“We made many public statements about our concern for civilian casualties,” Mr Blake told the BBC.
“And I must say – something many observers forget to note – we always were very balanced in our statements. We always were careful to note that the LTTE bore a great responsibility as well. Because they cynically placed heavy weapons in civilian encampments and fired those weapons in order to draw return fire from Sri Lanka military. And secondly the LTTE refused to allow freedom of movement by the IDPs. And indeed shot many of them who tried to escape. So the LTTE is also guilty of many serious violations,” he added.
The United States which has had a “long and a positive relationship with the government and the people of Sri Lanka, said Mr Blake, would like continue that relationship and “strengthen” the friendship with Sri Lanka’s people.
Splendid Collection On Constitutional Issues
Dr Laksiri Fernando
Asanga Welikala (edt). 2012. The Sri Lankan Republic at 40: Reflections on Constitutional History, Theory and Practice. Colombo: Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA). Also at http://republicat40.org
Reviewed by Laksiri Fernando
May 1972 was undoubtedly a ‘constitutional moment’ as the editor of this mammoth two volume publication has correctly stated. Many people were excited about it including myself at that time, but the new republican constitution (1972) did not bring about the expected results, except the so-called ‘constitutional revolution.’ It couldn’t capture the aspirations of the youth who rebelled in April 1971 against state oppression by democratising the state structures. Some of these aspirations are articulated by Lionel Bopage in the volume. Instead it created a parliament and politicians that ostensibly wielded all powers in the name of people’s sovereignty.
It failed to meet the aspirations of particularly the Tamil community either who sought at least a compromise for their national question that bedevilled the country since communal riots in 1958. R. Sampanthan has very clearly expressed this view in the volume. Instead it established the hegemony of Sinhala Buddhist nationalism through the provisions on language, religion and entrenching a strict unitary state structure. No minority, religious or ethnic, had much objection to recognize the historical role of Buddhism or Sinhala culture in a nonintrusive manner but complete majoritarian supremacy was and is objectionable. There are more than half a dozen of chapters in the publication that directly and invariably revisit this theme from different angels.
The first republican constitution did not last for more than six years but a more centralized second republican constitution (1978) with an all- powerful executive president and all hallmarks of majoritarian supremacy continues until today with uneasy changes, i.e. establishing a provincial council system (1987). If there is a major lacuna in this volume, it is the lack of proper attention or analysis of this ‘obnoxious constitution’ and the misery that it has brought. Almost thirty four years of the ‘forty years of the republic’ is occupied by this second constitution.
Problem in Essence
Sunela Jayewardene brilliantly captures this predicament in graphic form in the cover page; the ‘ancient state’ reincarnated in modern form. Both constitutions, 1972 and 1978, contradicted the very essence of ‘republicanism’ by being oppressively vertical. A true republic should have been based on at least some forms of horizontal democratic principles by strengthening the local government system and incorporating the regional councils agreed upon by the Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam Pact in 1958. The most depressing was the hegemony of the majoritarian ethnicity, language and religion in the last forty odd years of the so-called republican political system. As quoted by Qadri Ismail, perhaps Martin Wickremasinghe, the ‘inspiring iconoclast’ according to Ismail, was the most apt in capturing this republican predicament in ordinary parlance.
“The exploitation of language, race and religion by politicians is partly due to their inability to identify themselves with the common people or the greater nation. There is a cultural unity among the common people in spite of differences of religion, language and race.”
‘Race’ may not be the correct word to use in categorizing people, and it only reflects the influence of a dominant perception transplanted perhaps through colonialism, in otherwise a radical interpretation of the republican predicament. Wickremasinghe is not talking about the ‘common people’ as it is, but as it ‘ought to be’ in a true republic. As a literary figure, Wickremasinghe was a social visionary but the politicians unfortunately were not. For the republic to be meaningful, we lacked visionaries like Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson or James Madison in Sri Lanka.
A review of a mammoth anthology such as the present cannot do justice by trying to comment on each and every chapter in the collection. The two volumes run into 1166 pages with 22 substantive contributions and 5 lengthy interviews. Only few of them are around 20 pages and the longest runs into over 80 pages. The editor has appropriately divided the volume into four parts: (1) constitutional history (2) constitutional theory (3) constitutional practice and (4) interviews and recollections. This review can do some justice by taking perhaps one or two chapters from each part and reviewing them briefly while commenting on others as appropriate. The selection is not by any objective merit but completely by the academic preference of the reviewer.
Constitutional History
If there is anything strikingly new about the history of the republic that this volume has produced it is the compelling argument that the ‘legal revolution’ that the constituent assembly followed was ‘erroneous’ or at least not necessary as a legal or constitutional requirement. This undoubtedly resonates the ideas held byNihal Jayawickrama among others, during the time of framing the new constitution and later, but Asanga Welikala, has in a 56 page chapter very clearly elaborates this proposition giving clear evidence and substantive references. His investigation while going deep into the textual interpretation of Section 29 of theSoulbury or the independent constitution, also explicates the case law and prevalent academic views on the subject. What might be also new about his argumentation is the weight that he has given to the legal/theoretical positions of Sir Ivor Jennings who was the legal creator of the constitution. In that sense it is also a tribute to Jennings.
Welikala seems to hold the view that the limitations entrenched on legislative power in Section 29 were procedural and not substantive and in fact were necessary within the premises of liberal constitutionalism. It may be true, but Colvin R De Silva undoubtedly held completely a different view not only as a Marxist who aspired for a ‘kind of revolution’ but also in this case as a constitutional lawyer who didn’t want to gamble with a former colonial power by following the circumscribed procedure in constitutional change.
There are five other chapters in the section on history; Nihal Jayawickrama making his reflections both on the making and the contents of the constitution comprehensively and Radhika Coomaraswamy giving a lucid overview on the constitution useful for any beginner. The three remaining chapters are useful in understanding the post 1972 political dynamics, Banjamin Schonthal analysing the section on Buddhism in the constitution that precipitates future trends, Farzana Haniffa painfully describing the misgivings of the Muslim community and Michael Roberts unravelling the roots of Sinhala hegemony in ancient history. Robert’s chapter is more theoretical than historical.
Constitutional Theory
Although there are ten chapters in this section, none could be considered supplying an overall theoretical framework for constitutionalism, except partially by Stephen Tierney. Perhaps it is the way it was intended. However, if sovereignty can be taken as a major facet of modern constitutionalism then the chapter by Hallie Ludson and the joint chapter by Cheryl Saunders and Anna Dziedzic are both informative and analytical on the subject; the latter is exceedingly useful being a comparative study. Kumar David undoubtedly gives an alternative Marxist point of view on constitutionalism other than interpreting the 1972 constitution from the same point of view.
If there is any common thematic underpinning in the whole volume, it is the recurrent discussions on Sinhala Buddhist nationalism. This selection of focus is quite topical, whether prompted by the editor or coincidental selection by individual authors, in the context of the recent emergence of Bodu Bala Sena (Buddhist Force Army) as a major political force, if I may say, ‘within the ruling coalition.’ In this case, Roshan de Silva Wijeyeratne’s chapter is quite inspirational apart from its analytical rigour. If there is a major underlying ideological force that could be identified behind the constitutional change in Sri Lanka that is undoubtedly nationalism and Sinhala nationalism for that matter. Apart from nationalism, there have been changes in the political economy but unfortunately none of the chapters have paid any attention except Kumar David.
Wijeyeratne says “The 1972 Constitution is replete with a particular cultural inheritance: when held in front of a mirror its reflection is a testament to the primordial consciousness of Sinhalese nationalism.” I hardly disagree. But I cannot fully agree with him when he says “the executive precedency introduced under the 1978 Republican Constitution has merely enhanced this process.” I would attribute more of political economy changes to the distinct features of the 1978 constitution than of Sinhala nationalism or its extension. We might prove our folly, however brilliant our analysis is, if we try to explain everything from a single theoretical angle.
Further on the theoretical front of the volume, Qadri Ismail’s chapter on culture and its understanding through the means of ‘language’ is quite refreshing although he has not directly referred to the constitution. His title of the chapter says that ‘the republic is forty, but culture is one-forty!’ Ismail analyses at length an essay by Martin Wickremasinghe titled “Impetus for the Growth of a Multiracial Culture” (1972) drawing upon post-structuralist critical theory. This ‘culture’ as expressed by Martin Wickremasinghe is not a devising factor like language, ethnicity or religion but (hopefully) a uniting force that people share or could share. This is particularly true of the essence of literature, music or art. Ismail’s chapter ends with a hopeful note and perhaps that is the way forward for Sri Lanka.
Constitutional Practice
The section on constitutional practice begins with a conceptual analysis of ethnicity, nationalism and necessary pluralism written by Yash Ghai based on the Kenyan experience with a cautiously positive note highlighting the changes incorporated in the new 2010 constitution. It is educational and pointer to possible changes in the constitution in Sri Lanka. It is followed by a similarly educational chapter by L.C. Arulpragasam yet focusing on the uneasy balance between democracy and national aspirations of various communities in a modern polity or ‘nation state’ drawing parallels from other countries for Sri Lanka. His views are less critical compared to many others who consider “constitutionally and otherwise, the Constitution of 1972 was an improvement on the Soulbury Constitution.” The chapter by Nicholas Haysom on ‘constitutional making and nation building in divided societies’ is more of an analytical study on the subject useful for anyone in understanding some of the intricacies of national building.
There are two chapters specifically on gender issues and constitutionalism in the overall Sri Lankan context one jointly written by Maithree Wickramasingha and Chulani Kodikara and the other written by Susan H. Williams. While the former is a detailed and empirical exposition of the paucity of women representation in parliament, provincial councils and local government institutions, the latter gives light on to some of the sociological underpinnings for this paucity looking forward to possible constitutional remedies.
Jayampathy Wickramaratne’s chapter on fundamental rights in this section does not limit to the 1972 constitution. It traces the genesis of fundamental rights in constitutionalism, why for example Ivor Jennings advised not to incorporate a chapter in the Soulbury constitution and the nature and scope of their incorporation in the 1972 constitution. He maintains the view that there was an apparent failure on the part of the Left in its inability to convince the constituent assembly or the SLFP to incorporate economic, social and cultural rights while maintain the argument that “the contention that fundamental rights were not justiciable under the 1972 Constitution is not correct.” He is also of the opinion that the recreation of a ‘constitutional court’ might be imperative to preserve the supremacy of the constitution or constitutionalism in Sri Lanka.
Conclusion
This review did not attempt to discuss the five interviews incorporated in the final section of the volume as they are primarily political opinions and not based on research work. This review also did not attempt to discuss the much important conception or model on ‘plurinational constitutionalism’ of Stephen Tierney in the volume as it may require much thought before its application to Sri Lanka and much space for its discussion as a relevant concept.
The editor of the volume should be congratulated for his untiring efforts in bringing much valuable research and opinion monographs together that would be immensely useful for the general reader as well as the students and teachers particularly of law, political science and contemporary history. It is indeed a splendid collection. If I were to point out two weaknesses of the whole volume, that would be the absence of at least a comparative analysis of the first republic (1972) with the second (1978), and also the absence of any ‘political economy’ analysis of constitutionalism in Sri Lanka. It may be true that ‘all hell broke loose’ in 1972, but it continued or culminated in 1978. If the 1972 constitution was the ‘mirror’ of the 1956 Sinhala nationalist revolution, the 1978 constitution was the ‘mould’ of the neo-liberal economy; both in combination produced the ethnic civil war in the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)