Sinhala military assaults Trinco villagers for calling their village in Tamil

[TamilNet, Wednesday, 24 April 2013, 11:02 GMT]
Ilangkaith-thu’rai, meaning in this context “the islet-port,” is an ancient Tamil coastal village at a scenic location in the Eechchilam-pattai division of Trincomalee district. The occupying Sinhala military has Sinhalicized the place-name as “Lankaa-patana” and insists the local villagers to use the Sinhala name even in their speech. If any of the villagers mention their village name in Tamil, they are beaten up by the Sinhala military, news sources in Trincomalee said. Two years ago, the occupying military destroyed a Murukan temple located at the port entrance, appropriated 15 acres of land, and built a Buddhist temple named “Samudra-giri Vihara,” at that spot. While the village roads are in dilapidated condition, a new, broad road now links the Buddhist temple, facilitating Sinhala visitors from the South who come in thousands nowadays. 

The word Ilangkai in ancient Tamil usage originally meant any island in the sea or any islet in rivers etc. The Austro-Asiatic form of the word Lankaa also originally meant the same as could be seen in many place names in the tribal parts of Central India and Andhra. 

By popularity of usage, Lankaa/ Ilangkai became exclusive terms for what is called the island of ‘Sri Lanka’ today.

The Tamil usage of calling any islet in the river or in the backwaters also as Ilangkai is not found in Sinhala.

Ilangkaith-thu’rai is the small islet lying across little inside of the lagoon entrance [Image courtesy: Google Earth]

Ilangkaith-thu’rai village in Trincomalee district gained the name, as there is a small islet located at the entrance to the port, at the mouth of the sea-inlet. Ilangkai, in this context, stands for the islet at the mouth of the lagoon.

This name has nothing to do with the Lankaa or ‘Sri Lanka’ that is imposed on Eezham Tamils in a genocidal fashion by the State in Colombo and by its international abetters. The SL military has no justification or authority in Sinhalicizing the place name and forcing the Tamils to use it, the civil society sources in Trincomalee said.

If the Eastern Provincial Council has any meaning, how could a place name be changed, the civil society sources asked, adding that the Geneva resolution is aiming on a similar course to the North too, by harping on the Northern PC elections. 

The State in Sri Lanka and its Sinhala military occupying the country of Eezham Tamils are encouraged in every way to accelerate and continue the structural genocide, by the attitude of the International Community of Establishments (ICE), especially by the USA and India that neither recognized the territoriality of Eezham Tamils, nor the genocide, Tamil civil society circles in Trincomalee said.

Colombo’s structural genocide activities show a marked escalation since the passing of the US-tabled, Indian fine-tuned, resolution at Geneva this March, the civil society circles further said.

Ilangkai-thu'rai in Sri Lanka's One Inch Map of 1975. Note the two temples in the village. The ruins were claimed as Buddhist by the map.

Ilangkai-thu'rai in Sri Lanka's Metric Map of 1990s. The next map is likely to come with the name "Lankaa Patana"

A Full Meeting Of The UK Bar Council Resolution Supports The Rights Of Sri Lankan Judges And Lawyers

April 24, 2013 |

A full meeting of the Bar Council on April 23, 2013, which represents barristers in England and Wales, has resolved to support the right of Sri Lankan judges and lawyers to adjudicate and practise law freely, fairly and independently. The resolution comes following the impeachment of Sri Lanka’s Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake.

Maura McGowan QC

Maura McGowan QC, Chairman of the Bar, said:

“The Bar Council of England and Wales is extremely concerned about the impeachment of Shirani Bandaranayake, which we believe constitutes a grave threat to the independence of the judiciary in Sri Lanka and to the Rule of Law.

The Bar Council condemns this action and seeks to offer its vocal support for judges and lawyers across Sri Lanka.

The Rule of Law is essential to any functioning and democratic society, to ensure that its most vulnerable can enjoy effective access to justice.”

For further information, please contact the Bar Council Press Office on 020 7222 2525 or Press@BarCouncil.org.uk.

Bar Council Resolution to Support  Sri Lanka  Lawyers  And Judges

23 April 2013

A full meeting of the Bar Council, which represents barristers in England and Wales, has resolved to support the right of Sri Lankan judges and lawyers to adjudicate and practise law freely, fairly and independently. The resolution comes following the impeachment of Sri Lanka's Chief Justice, Shirani Bandaranayake.

Maura McGowan QC, Chairman of the Bar, said:

"The Bar Council of England and Wales is extremely concerned about the impeachment of Shirani Bandaranayake, which we believe constitutes a grave threat to the independence of the judiciary in Sri Lanka and to the Rule of Law.

"The Bar Council condemns this action and seeks to offer its vocal support for judges and lawyers across Sri Lanka.

"The Rule of Law is essential to any functioning and democratic society, to ensure that its most vulnerable can enjoy effective access to justice."

ENDS

Notes to editors:

1. For further information, please contact the Bar Council Press Office on 020 7222 2525 orPress@BarCouncil.org.uk.

2. The Bar Council represents barristers in England and Wales. It promotes:

• The Bar's high quality specialist advocacy and advisory services
• Fair access to justice for all
• The highest standards of ethics, equality and diversity across the profession, and
• The development of business opportunities for barristers at home and abroad.

The General Council of the Bar is the Approved Regulator of the Bar of England and Wales. It discharges its regulatory functions through the independent Bar Standards Board .

Sri Lanka boycott calls mar Commonwealth countdown

(AFP) / 24 April 2013

Sri Lanka had hoped to showcase its post-war revival at this year’s Commonwealth summit, but observers say its biggest international event in decades is in danger of becoming a major embarrassment.

Invitations have yet to be posted for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and with more than six months to go, several key leaders are expected to stay away as a mark of protest against President Mahinda Rajapakse’s regime.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has urged his peers to follow him in boycotting the November 15-17 meeting unless Sri Lanka probes its troops over allegations — denied by Colombo — that 40,000 civilians were killed in 2009.
There is a major question mark over British Prime Minister David Cameron’s attendance, say diplomats, while India’s Manmohan Singh faces domestic pressure to stay away in what would represent a major snub from the regional powerhouse.
‘There is little doubt that Colombo will use the CHOGM and its leadership of the Commonwealth to signal ‘all is well’ with Sri Lanka,’ said Charu Lata Hogg, a regional expert for the Chatham House think-tank in London.
But ‘the CHOGM will not turn Sri Lanka into a good news story’, she added.
After nearly four decades of civil war, Sri Lanka crushed the Tamil Tiger rebels in 2009.
Backed by India, the United States and European nations, the UN Human Rights Council last month called for an investigation into suspected war crimes including the alleged indiscriminate killing of civilians at the conflict’s climax.
While Rajapakse now reigns supreme at home, his government has also faced foreign censure over a lack of media freedom, judicial independence and suppression of the opposition.
Western diplomats say it is probably too late for a venue change but the Commonwealth summit could instead become a focus for protests by opposition exiles.
‘Tamils in Colombo are unlikely to take to the streets because there is a fear psychosis among them. But we can expect demonstrations in places like London where there are lots of Tamils,’ opposition Tamil politician Dharmalingam Sithadthan said.
‘If big names keep away, it is very bad publicity for Sri Lanka.’
After Colombo won the right to host the summit two years ago following the last Commonwealth summit in Perth, Australia, Foreign Minister G. L. Peiris said it represented ‘an unqualified triumph for Sri Lanka’.
The government has not wavered in its determination to host the meeting although deputy foreign minister Neomal Perera said last week that ‘various elements who want to bring disrepute to the country’ had been trying to get Sri Lanka suspended from the Commonwealth.
The disciplinary body of the 54-member bloc is due to have a teleconference on Friday out of London.
Although Sri Lanka is not on the formal agenda, diplomatic sources said there could be moves to bring it up — especially concerns about judicial independence after the recent sacking of the chief justice.
Sri Lanka is generally impervious to foreign criticism of its rights record but it would represent a significant diplomatic setback if Indian Prime Minister Singh were to stay away from the summit.
Politicians in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, whose population shares close ties with Sri Lanka’s ethnic Tamils, have been urging the prime minister to boycott the event and Singh will be wary of upsetting an important constituency months before India goes to the polls.
‘A situation where the CHOGM will go ahead with low-level representation is conceivable,’ said a Western diplomat, asking not to be named.
And the Sri Lankan opposition is hoping that Rajapakse can be embarrassed by the absence of senior world leaders from what should be the biggest summit in Colombo since a 1976 gathering of the Non-Aligned Movement.
‘The government expects to increase its popularity by brushing shoulders with world leaders visiting Colombo,’ lawmaker Anura Kumara Dissanayake of the left-wing JVP party told AFP.
One leader who is likely to be there is Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard as she is due to hand over the chairmanship of the body to Sri Lanka.
In a recent letter to Commonwealth leaders, the New York-based Human Rights Watch said that such a transfer would be an ‘affront to the victims of rights violations’.

Lawyers back Sri Lanka suspension

BY FRANNY RABKIN, 24 APRIL 2013,

THE Law Society of South Africa on Tuesday came out in support of a resolution by Commonwealth lawyers calling for the suspension of Sri Lanka, which is due to host the 54-nation body’s next summit meeting, in November.

The resolution said the Sri Lankan government had violated the rule of law when it unlawfully impeached its former chief justice, Shirani Bandaranayake.

Sri Lanka will host the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting from November 15-17 in Colombo. President Mahinda Rajapaksa will become chairman of the organisation.

The president of the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, Mark Stephens, said being a member of the Commonwealth was a "badge of respectability". To award Mr Rajapaksa the status of chair was "effectively to reward a state’s miscreant behaviour."

The resolution was taken unanimously last week in Cape Town by about 900 lawyers, judges and law teachers from across the 54 countries that make up the Commonwealth.

It called on Commonwealth members to suspend Sri Lanka from the councils of the Commonwealth and to reconsider holding of the next heads of government meeting in Sri Lanka. This would tarnish the reputation of the Commonwealth and "call into grave question the value, credibility and future of the Commonwealth", the resolution said.

It would also "be seen as condoning the action of governments who violate its principles, and by its silence will undermine the moral authority it purports to have in protecting" rights.

The impeachment of Judge Bandaranayake, the country’s first woman chief justice, was found by Sri Lanka’s court of appeal to be unlawful — a decision ignored by its government.

It is also reportedly widely believed that the impeachment was politically motivated after Sri Lanka’s highest court, its supreme court, would not approve several government bills.

Her impeachment was followed by a series of transfers of judges and magistrates who were reportedly her supporters.

The resolution also referred to "gross and repeated harassment" of Sri Lankan lawyers who had defended the rule of law and judicial independence.

The Bar Association of Sri Lanka condemned the "violation of the rules of natural justice" in the way in which the impeachment was handled.

The Law Society of SA’s co-chairpersons, Kathleen Matolo-Dlepu and David Bekker, urged the South African government "not to remain silent in the face of these violations".

The Commonwealth secretariat’s spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment.

PRESS RELEASE-LAW SOCIETY SUPPORTS COMMONWEALTH LAWYERS’ CALL FOR  SUSPENSION OF SRI LANKA FROM THE COMMONWEALTH

23 April 2013: For immediate release

The Law Society of South Africa (LSSA) supports the call made last week by the 

Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA) for the suspension of Sri Lanka from the 

Councils of the Commonwealth due to its breaches of the rule of law and of the 

independence of the judiciary, as well as the gross harassment of members of the legal 

profession.

The LSSA supports the CLA resolution passed unanimously by some 900 judges and 

lawyers from across the Commonwealth who attended the 18th Commonwealth Law 

Conference held in Cape Town last week. The resolution 

 calls on the Members of the Commonwealth, through the Commonwealth 

Ministerial Action Group, to place Sri Lanka on the agenda of its next meeting on 

26 April 2013 and suspend it from the Councils of the Commonwealth for serious 

and persistent violations of the Commonwealth fundamental values. This 

suspension would not preclude the people of Sri Lanka from participating in nongovernmental Commonwealth activities; and

 exhorts members of the Commonwealth to reconsider the holding of the next 

Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka as to do so would

o tarnish the reputation of the Commonwealth, especially given that the Sri 

Lankan Head of State will thereby assume the role of Chair-in-Office; and

o call into grave question the value, credibility and future of the Commonwealth.

‘The LSSA echoes the concern of lawyers from across the Commonwealth at the 

continued erosion of the independence of the judiciary through the impeachment of the 

Chief Justice Bandaranayake at the end of last year, and the subsequent relocation of 

magistrates and judges in Sri Lanka; the failure of the Sri Lankan Executive to abide by 

court orders; and the gross and persistent harassment of members of the legal 

profession and others who are seeking to defend these values in Sri Lanka,’ say LSSA 

Co-Chairpersons Kathleen Matolo-Dlepu and David Bekker.

The LSSA expressed its grave concern in January this year at the politically motivated 

impeachment of the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka, Shirani Bandaranayake, and other rule of 

law violations, and urged the South African Government not to remain silent in the face 

these violations, while at the same time increasing its bilateral and trade relations with 

Sri Lanka.

Click here to read the ‘Resolution on the Rule of Law and Judicial Independence in Sri 

Lanka’ adopted by the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, the Commonwealth Legal 

Education Association and the Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association in 

Cape Town on 17 April 2013.

ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE CO-CHAIRPERSONS OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF SOUTH 

AFRICA, KATHLEEN MATOLO-DLEPU AND DAVID BEKKER

by Barbara Whittle

Communication Manager, Law Society of South Africa

Tel: (012) 366 8800 or 083 380 1307 

E-mail: barbara@lssa.org.za Website: www.lssa.org.za

Editor’s note:

The Law Society of South Africa brings together its six constituent members – the Cape Law 

Society, the KwaZulu-Natal Law Society, the Law Society of the Free State, the Law Society of 

the Northern Provinces, the Black Lawyers Association and the National Association of 

Democratic Lawyers – in representing South Africa’s 21 400 attorneys and 5 800 candidate 

attorneys.

The Commonwealth Lawyers Association is an international organisation which exists to 

promote and maintain the rule of law throughout the Commonwealth by ensuring that an 

independent and efficient legal profession, with the highest standards of ethics and integrity, 

serves the people of the Commonwealth. The LSSA is a member of the CLA.

Ushering In A New Era Of Purified Judiciary?

By Basil Fernando -

Basil Fernando

President Mahinda Rajapaksa was recently quoted as saying that he will take stern action to see that the judiciary will remain ‘pure’. This statement raises many questions.

The test of a good judiciary is its ability to act independently. Here, ‘independent’ means the absence of dependence on the executive. The judiciary must be able to take any action when the law requires it to do against any executive agency including the executive president himself. Quite simply, no such independence exists in Sri Lanka now. What kind of purity can therefore exist in a judiciary when it is not allowed to be independent? The moment the judiciary avoids taking decisions that the law requires due to a reckoning with the actual circumstances and exigencies of the time, it is already compromised and therefore it cannot act in any manner that might be considered ‘pure’. The president has created that situation. Therefore, when he speaks of making the judiciary pure it cannot mean that there is going to be an overturning of the policy so far prevailing and that the judiciary can now make decisions independently without fearing that the executive will punish them.

In any case it is not the task of the executive to see that the judiciary is pure. In the relationship between the judiciary and the executive the duty is really with the judiciary to scrutinise the executive and to see that the executive acts within the law. What the president is trying to do is to turn this relationship on its head by taking upon himself the job of scrutinising the judiciary. When that happens this is no longer the operation of the separation of power principle but, in fact, the very opposite. In this new setup the relationship between the judiciary and the executive would hardly be a democratic relationship. In short the president’s declaration is just further confirmation that all relationships are now being transformed into relationships within an authoritarian system.

In such circumstances taking stern action to see that the judiciary remains pure could only mean that completely ‘pure’ subservience to the executive is expected. Those who are unwilling to extend such subservience will be subjected to ‘stern action’. Thus, purification does not mean the de-politicisation of the judiciary but rather the completion of the politicisation process.

In the South Asia context we know that the word purification has been used for millenniums in a very dirty sense. In the Brahmanical order doing anything that was against the interest of the Brahmans was considered polluting or impure. For the poorer classes who are called Dalits and low caste, they were always considered polluting and impure. Anything they would do to better their position and improve their lot would amount to making themselves even more polluted and impure. The doctrine of purity was also used against women to ensure their subjugation.

It appears that the manner in which the president is going to purify the judiciary implies that it is presently polluted with alien notions of independence and the rule of law and therefore must be purified through stern action so that they are ready to serve the interests of the executive alone.

One such strong action has already been taken by way of the removal of the Chief Justice, Dr. Bandaranayke. A further act of purification was the reappointment of a judge who was interdicted by the Judicial Service Commission on a charge of corruption. A further act of purification has been to transfer a large number of judicial officers who opposed the government’s removal of the chief justice without a proper inquiry acceptable to their judicial minds. All these are indications of the kind of stern action that will continue to be taken to keep the judiciary ‘pure’ in the eye of the president.

Troubled New Year Begins in Sri Lanka

COLOMBO, Apr 24 2013 (IPS) - The eve of the much anticipated Sinhala and Tamil New Year, celebrated across the island of Sri Lanka in mid-April to mark the end of the harvest season, was marred by a series of attacks, reminding everyone that “peace” does not mean a lack of violence.

A new U.N. resolution on Sri Lanka suggests that international pressure on the government will not diminish any time soon. Credit: Amantha Perera/IPS

On Apr. 13, the printing presses of the Jaffna-based Tamil language ‘Uthayan’ newspaper came under attack, reportedly the 37^th time the paper or those attached to it have been targeted.

In 2006, unidentified gunmen killed two of the publication’s employees, and during the last stages of the civil war that unfolded here in early 2009, some of the staff members lived and worked from its premises, too scared to step out of doors.

About two weeks before this latest incident, an Uthayan distribution centre in the northern town of Kilinochchi was attacked. Critics say the newspaper, owned by an opposition Tamil parliamentarian, has been partial to Tamil separatists. The government has described the damage on the distribution centre as an “inside hatchet job”, claims rejected by the publisher.

Further south, a group of Buddhist extremists calling themselves the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) have been spearheading a campaign of hatred towards Muslims, inciting mobs to attack Muslim-owned shops and business establishments.

In the beginning of April tensions flared when police broke up a candlelight vigil in front of the main office of the BBS. Some of those who said they had simply come to spread a message of peace were either arrested or verbally assaulted by the police.

These incidents come barely a month after the passage of the second successive U.S.-sponsored resolution on Sri Lanka at the U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva in mid-March.

The resolution calls on the Sri Lanka government “to conduct an independent and credible investigation into allegations of violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law” committed during its conclusive war with the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in 2009 — but stops short of specifying punitive action if the government fails to comply.

Rights groups and aid workers who witnessed the final battles here in 2009 say the fighting displaced over 200,000 people and killed at least 40,000, many of them civilians. The government maintains there were “no civilian casualties”.

“This year's resolution makes clearer than before the international community's deep concern about serious ongoing human rights violations and the need for a proper and independent investigation into allegations."

These unanswered questions threatened to divide the wounded country still further and elicited an international outcry. Finally, in May 2010, Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapakse appointed the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) to investigate the conduct of the armed forces during the war.

The Commission handed its final report to Rajapakse in November 2011. But in February this year, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said the government has been “selective” in responding to the recommendations put forth by the LLRC.

Now, again, the resolution from Geneva leaves the onus for action in the hands of a government that has time and again dismissed statements and warnings from the international community as an “infringement” on Sri Lankan sovereignty.

Another disappointment was that, despite initial talk of requesting permission for Pillay to be granted full access to probe allegations of on-going rights abuse on the island, the adopted resolution simply calls on the Sri Lankan government to carry out its own investigations that are up to “international standards”.

In what was seen as a major watering down of the text, all references to “unfettered” access for U.N. special rapporteurs were replaced in the final document with a request that the government “cooperate” with special mandate holders and respond to outstanding requests for visits. All eight U.N. special rapporteurs are currently awaiting invitations to visit the country.

Rights activists say it is unlikely that the situation in Sri Lanka will change overnight – it will take time for international pressure to have an impact and that, too, only if it is sustained.

U.S. Ambassador to Sri Lanka Michele J. Sison told a group of journalists on Apr. 8 that the U.S., as the main backer of the resolution, is keeping a close eye on the situation on the ground, warning that “more serious” measures could be on the cards if the Rajapakse government fails to act on international concerns.

“The United States remains particularly concerned about threats against, and attacks on, media outlets in Sri Lanka,” she said, in reference to the attack on the Uthayan premises in Jaffna.

“As we examine next steps, we will renew our consideration of all mechanisms available, both in the Human Rights Council and beyond,” Sison told the Foreign Correspondents’ Association, though she declined to elaborate on what those “mechanisms” would be.

Other experts and rights defenders have issued similar warnings of sterner action. Alan Keenan, Sri Lanka project director of the London-based International Crisis Group (ICG), told IPS, “Sri Lanka can ignore these concerns only at its long term peril. And if the government does continue to ignore these international concerns, I expect the pressure will grow.”

Ruki Fernando, of the Rights Now Collective, a national advocacy body, told IPS that the resolution should not be taken in isolation but evaluated as an indication of persistent international scrutiny of Sri Lanka.

“The resolution acknowledges and expresses concern about serious ongoing violations and calls for more action by the government, including involvement of minorities and civil society and credible and independent investigations into allegations of violations of international humanitarian and human rights law,” he said.

He added that some crucial demands that were included in the original draft of the resolution but later withdrawn – such as “unfettered” access for U.N. special mandate holders – could be included in future resolutions.

“This year’s resolution makes clearer than before the international community’s deep concern about serious ongoing human rights violations and the need for a proper and independent investigation into allegations,” according to Keenan.

The international community’s dedication to holding Sri Lanka accountable to global human rights standards will be reflected in the November meeting of heads of Commonwealth member states scheduled to be held here; already there have been calls for a boycott of the meeting, or a shifting of the location.

The UK, which included Sri Lanka as a country of concern in its latest Human Rights and Democracy Report, said that it would do all it can to “encourage Sri Lanka to demonstrate adherence to Commonwealth values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, particularly ahead of… the meeting in November”.

(END)

The Sri Lankan army is essentially Sinhalese and it has an inherent hatred for Tamils

By  P C Vinoj Kumar    Editor25 Apr 2013

Posted 17-Jun-2011 Vol 2 Issue 24 Not all Sinhalese are evil. Neither is every Tamil a saint. But the fact remains that every soldier in the Sri Lankan army who fought the war against the LTTE during 2008-2009 was a Sinhalese. This background information is essential for any non-Tamil to understand how the Sri Lankan army can be so brutal against its own civilians. In Sri Lanka, Tamils are not treated on par with the Sinhalese. They are not inducted into the army, which is almost a 100 percent Sinhalese force. Horrific footage: Channel 4 footage shows a Lankan soldier getting ready to shoot a suspected Tamil militant in cold blood Are there any Tamils in the force at all? The then Sri Lankan deputy high commissioner in Chennai P M Amza refused to reveal the number of Tamils in the Lankan army when I sought the information from him in an email interview in 2007. I was a correspondent with Tehelka then. Having reported on the Sri Lankan Tamils issue for many years, I have noticed the deep-seated prejudice that most Sinhalese harbour against Tamils. In April 2009, Harinder Baweja, Tehelka’s Editor, Investigations, asked me to rush to Colombo to check out the ground situation as the war was entering its final stages. I applied for a visa. They kept me on tenterhooks for over a week. Sri Lankan consulate officials in Chennai asked me to contact their foreign ministry office in Colombo. I spoke with many officials, but nothing worked. Harinder did not understand what was happening. She kept saying that many Indian journalists had already landed in Colombo. Why then I was being denied a visa? It was true that Colombo rolled out the red carpet to many Indian journalists, but most of them toed the army line. They flew in army helicopters to the war front, and reported what the Lankan officials told them. My reporting on the Lankan issue had always been fair. I spoke to both sides - the Tamil militants and the army - which the Lankan officials did not apparently like. Was it the reason I was denied a visa? Or was it simply because I was a Tamil myself? Forget that. The point is, Colombo is a spoilt brat. She only wants good things said about her. She wants to be caressed and fondled at all times. She has been fed and pampered by India and China, who have an eye on her assets - which includes her strategic geographical position. She lives on their money. Like overbearing mistresses she has now come to believe that she can get away with anything, even mass murder. Nothing like this has been seen on television before. But Colombo has made a grave mistake in overestimating the influence of her friends. She has always been dim witted. India and China cannot go beyond a certain limit to save her. There is mounting evidence of Colombo’s war crimes. Channel 4, a British TV channel, which has aired horrifying video footage of the brutal acts of Sinhalese soldiers in the past, recently showed more clips that provide fresh evidence to haul up Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa before the International Criminal Court on charges of war crime. The new footages show naked bodies of Tamil women, who seem to have been sexually abused before being killed. Lewd remarks from the soldiers like, “I really want to cut her tits off, if no one was around,” bring out the beastly nature of the government forces. International community is losing its patience with Colombo with each passing day. Responding to the Channel 4 footage, Britain’s foreign office minister Alistair Burt has said: “Since the end of the conflict the UK has called for an independent, thorough and credible investigation of the allegations that war crimes were committed during the hostilities and the UK Government expects to see progress by the end of the year. If the Sri Lankan government does not respond we will support the international community in revisiting all options available to press the Sri Lankan Government to fulfil its obligations.” The Weekend Leader was first among the Indian media to forecast what was coming for Rajapaksa. In April, soon after the UN Panel submitted its indicting report on Sri Lanka, we wrote an article headlined, ‘Ground prepared for Mahinda Rajapaksa’s tryst with destiny’. We will continue to keep the spotlight on the issue till justice is rendered to the Tamils. Also Read: Voice of Jayalalithaa may be a dawn of new hope for Sri Lankan Tamils

For Whom Is The ‘Tamil Civil Society View’ Causing Trouble? A Response To Dayan’s Rejoinder

By Kumaravadivel Guruparan -April 24, 2013 |

Kumaravadivel Guruparan

This is in response to Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka’s rejoinder (‘The Problem with Mr. Guruparan’s ‘Tamil Civil Society’ view’) to my article titled ‘Much Ado About Nothing: The Northern Provincial Council Elections, 13th Amendment and the rationale for a Transitional Administration’. I am thankful to Dr. Jayatilleke for the engagement. There is a lot of rhetoric and conceptual hair splitting in his response. I respond to what I see as his substantive arguments.

1. Dr. Jayatilleka says the 13th amendment was not drafted in a hurry. The 13th amendment was indeed drawn up in a hurry. There were many proposals that were floated, post 1983 including the so called Annexure C proposals, the ‘working paper’ put forward by Ceylon Workers Congress on behalf of theTULF at the All Party Conference in 1984 etc, but the proposal for amending the constitution itself did not come until 04.09.1986. On 03.08.1987 Mr. Amirthalingam, Mr. Sambanthan and Mr. Sivasithambaram wrote a letter to Mr. Rajiv Gandhi that ‘certain outstanding matters required resolution’. On the 09.10.1987 the 13th amendment bill was placed on the order paper of Parliament without resolution of these outstanding matters. On 28.10.1987 the trio wrote a letter again to Rajiv Gandhi wherein they complained that the 13th amendment bill and the Provincial Councils bill were not made available to them or to the Government of India, before they were made public. The trio requested Mr. Rajiv Gandhi to request President Jayawardena ‘not to proceed with the two bills in parliament in the present form’ till the matters raised by them ‘are discussed and resolved to the satisfaction of the Tamil people’. [Copies of these letters can be found in TULF, “Towards Devolution of Power in Sri Lanka; Main Documents August 1983 – October 1987” (TULF, 1988)].

2. Dr. Jayatilleka says my criticism of the thirteenth amendment would have been fair if I had accepted the 13th amendment and then and took a strong stance for the re-allocation of the powers contained in the concurrent list so as to make devolution more meaningful. Even if the concurrent list is moved to the provincial list, the fact that the legislative agenda of the provincial council remains with the Governor will mean that such ‘location change’ will be of no real benefit. Tinkering with one or the other problematic aspects of the 13th amendment is not going to help. As I have sought to demonstrate in my article, the design, form, substance of the 13th amendment is flawed and any piece meal change to the system will not help render it workable. Further such location change is also likely to be interpreted as breaching the unitary character of the state, which I have argued, is constitutionally impossible, given the judgment of the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the 13th amendment, Interestingly Dr. Jayatilleka has nothing to say about most of these detailed criticisms that I have mounted on the 13th amendment.

3. Dr. Jayatilleka says the Tamil Civil Society is probably not just against a unitary Sri Lanka but also a united Sri Lanka. I am not necessarily against a united Sri Lanka but I definitely do not accept the present identity and character of the state. The current Sri Lankan state is a hierarchical, Sinhala Buddhist state. My detailed views on this are available here. A new ‘Sri Lanka’ that emerges out of a social contract between the different constituent nations of Sri Lanka needs to be envisioned.

In an ethnocracy, majoritarian democratic tools are a mode of control of the state for the majority ethnic community. That is what I meant by when I said that hold the Tamil people to ransom by keeping on repeating that we have to adhere to the democratic principle of deriving legitimacy from the consent of the majority of one’s fellow citizens. I do not know what Dr. Jayatilleka means when he says that I confuse the issue of seeking the democratic consent of the majority of one’s fellow citizens, with the question of the legitimacy of the state. Is Dr. Jayatilleka trying to suggest that the citizenry of the Sri Lankan state is devoid of ethnic affiliation? I also do not understand what point he seeks to make by resorting to hair splitting between ‘state apparatus’ and ‘state’.

4. Dr. Jayatilleka is more or less right when he interprets me as being of the opinion that “the 13th amendment which sits within a unitary state framework is irreparably flawed beyond acceptability”. Thus my problem, he argues is not with the 13th amendment, but with the unitary state framework, which provides the background to the 13th amendment. He also more or less correctly identifies that I am arguing for a reform which goes beyond the unitary state framework itself. He then goes on to say that this ‘is a fundamental transformation which goes well beyond what the Catholics of Northern Ireland, led by the Sinn Fein/IRA as accepted in the Good Friday accords’.

Comparing UK-Northern Ireland with Sri Lanka is like comparing apples and oranges. That the legal and political connception of the unitary state in the UK is completely different from the way it is understood in Sri Lanka is aptly demonstrated by Asanga Welikala in ‘Theorising the Unitary State: Why the United Kingdom is Not a Model for Sri Lanka’. (Paper presented at the 60th Anniversary Academic Sessions of the Faculty of Law, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka, 25 October 2008).  Citing Prof Neil Walker, Welikala, makes the point that “the legal unitary conception of the British constitution is, because of its non-substantive nature, in practice a highly flexible concept capable of accommodating a politically wide diversity of constitutional structures and visions”. For the same reason, Neil Walker argues, it admits of alternative conceptions such as the ‘Union State’ model and sub-state institutional asymmetry to co-exist with the unitary conception, provided formal recognition is accorded to the latter. Further Walker draws on an analytical framework of ‘cosmopolitan meta-constitutionalism’ to show how public law in the UK is now a multi-dimensional field in which the state (hitherto the only recognised source of constitutional law) is now only one among a multiplicity of sites of authority situated both within and without the Westphalian state’. Here Walker is referring to UK now sitting within a larger political space vis a vis the European Union. Welikala then turning to the Sri Lankan conception of a unitary state argues that from the constitutional backdrop of centralised unitarism in Sri Lanka, the post-colonial nation building discourse did not embrace values that could form the basis of a modern, democratic, and inclusive polity reflecting the pluralistic ethno-political foundations of the wider Sri Lankan society. On the contrary, the structures entrenched Sinhala nationalism’s majoritarian political ideology. Hence, Welikala concludes in the above article, that ‘the United Kingdom is not a model we can regard as a reference point for Sri Lankan debates on the unitary state as a constitutional proposition, due to fundamental differences in theory, praxis, and discourse.’

5. I do not understand Dr. Jayatilleka’s questions about my articulation for a transitional administration. Simply put the argument for a transitional administration is as follows: 1) The 13th amendment will not be able to deliver on the immediate development, reconstruction and livelihood needs of the people in the North and East, 2) the Government is not willing to discuss a final solution, 3) the Tamil people cannot wait and hence the demand for a transitional administration.

6. Dr. Jayatilleka contests my reading of his support for the 13th amendment as strategic positioning and not really because he thinks it adequately deals with the Tamil problem. If he does really think that it solves the Tamil people’s problem then he should demonstrate how it does. But if anyone wants more evidence that his support for the 13th amendment is indeed strategic here is one more extract from his writing:

“I have long advocated the Chechen solution – an all-out, combined arms war to destroy the terrorist militia, followed by the implementation of some form of autonomy and self-governance for the area and stabilization through the rule of an elected local ally. Our military victory has to be politically conserved and socially stabilised. That’s what my advocacy of the 13th amendment is about.” (Emphasis mine)

‘That’s what my advocacy of the 13th amendment is about’ says Dr. Jayatilleka. Can an articulation be any clearer? Whatever his intentions in the 80s and 90s his current advocacy for the 13th amendment is instrumental and strategic. And I am not the only one saying it either. Here is Kalana Senaratne reviewing Dr. Jayatilleka’s recent collection of articles:

“Jayatilleka believes strongly in the continuing relevance of India’s goodwill, and the need to ensure that the Indian centre does not capitulate to the whims of Tamil-Nadu. He understands more clearly the dangers confronting the country, in the context of BJP’s threatening stance and the 2014 Indian elections. For Jayatilleka, this is a diplomatic game which needs to be played with the 13th Amendment; i.e. by implementing it, not simply by promising to do.”

If questioning the dominant view is considered to be ‘troubling’, the Tamil Civil Society and I will proudly plead guilty.

*Kumaravadivel Guruparan is a Lecturer attached to the Department of Law, University of Jaffna and an Attorney-at-Law practicing in Jaffna. He is an active member of the Tamil Civil Society.