As TN school children struggle to learn Tamil, a new app to the rescue

Earlier no app was available that sufficiently integrated sounds and images.

Pheba Mathew| Tuesday, June 21, 2016

With the number of students able to fluently grasp Tamil in primary classes dropping drastically, an app called “Chutti Tamil Arichubadi” is hoping to come to the rescue.

Focusing on student needs, the app has options for learning the script, practicing writing and consulting a dictionary. Thus, the app provides flash-card like sequences of 247 letters along with audio of their correct pronunciations, turns the mobile screen into an erasable slate to practice letters, and provides a dictionary that claims to be more comprehensive than any other app-based offering currently available.

Says Bakthachalam, Head of Research and Development at Eduplay India, the company behind the app, “According to various surveys, including ours, about 40% of students find it difficult to grasp Tamil language in primary classes. Students also face problems in getting the sounds of Tamil letters right.”

Although this problem has been recognised for some years now, he says, no app was available that sufficiently integrated sounds and images.

The trial version of the app will be launched soon, and it will be available for download from July 4 on the Google Play Store.

The organisation plans to popularise the app through its existing tie-ups with schools in Tamil Nadu. “We have been in the education sector for 25 years and we have tie-ups with 800 schools in Tamil Nadu. We will be asking the teachers to ask parents to download this app to teach students Tamil in a more interesting manner,” he said.

He added that the company also aims to provide technological support for teaching Tamil to schools that require it.

The app will be available on the Google Play Store for Rs 50.

The EU referendum’s last day: the slogans and status quo

The EU referendum’s last day: the slogans and status quo

Wednesday 22 Jun 2016

Interesting that David Cameron should be boiling his message down to one word, “together,” in the closing hours of campaigning. The earlier, long-running slogans of the Remain camp haven’t taken hold of voters’ imaginations. You find Leave voters dropping “take control” casually and repeatedly into their own speech. I haven’t heard a single Remain supporter talk of “better together” or any other Remain slogan (can you name them?).

“Control” is a clever word to have on your supporters’ lips when the opposition are trying to label you as the “risk” choice. It balances or neutralises the risk. The question is whether the risk was just too much for some people.

Past referendums suggest there’s an element of pull back to the status quo that happens late in the day. The tragic murder of Jo Cox and the shift in mood that followed, the re-examination of the debate that happened in its wake, may have prompted some voters to shift back to the status quo. It could be that they cite that as their reason (didn’t like the company I was keeping politically, that sort of thing). But these same voters or quite a chunk of them might have been pulled back to the status quo anyway as the Remain camp emphasised “risk” in all its closing coverage. One senior Vote Leave figure said this was their analysis and they’d been stalled in the last few days.

But sustained work from Leave moved the dial so far that the late swing back to Remain might not pull it back? They certainly exceeded David Cameron’s fears and expectations. He never thought Leave would scoop up Michael Gove and Boris Johnson. He didn’t think those two would be so brutally undermining of his standing. The Leave camp made the strategic decision some time ago that they couldn’t just go for the Remain campaign but must go for its ultimate figurehead. Leave strategists decided total warfare was called for or, as one of them put it, “jiu-jitsu time.”

Nothing was left to chance in the Prime Minister’s last campaign tour of the country. Every venue was even more rigorously secret than usual to keep Vote Leave protesters off his trail. There was no fish kissing (Boris Johnson tried that) and nothing off message (no reference comparing experts to Nazi propagandists). He wore Dunlop not Hunters wellies for a visit to a farm in Oxfordshire. His new BF Harriet Harman accompanied him on a string of photo-calls this afternoon. After a visit to a building site near Swindon he hurried her onto a bus in high-visibility jackets and hard hats saying “this is part of the Village People routine.”

It has now ended with a rally at Birmingham University. I spied him applauding Gordon Brown as he suggested a post-Brexit Iain Duncan Smith regime would tear up worker protections. That itself a reminder that David Cameron could, even if he wins, find himself having to negotiate a second Coalition deal, this time with his own party.

Indian farmers demand action as lightning kills 93 people in two days

Storm in eastern state of Bihar kills at least 56, while 37 die in Uttar Pradesh, Jharkand and Madhya Pradesh as monsoon rains sweep country

Lightning over the golden temple in Amritsar during storms in April. Photograph: Hindustan Times via Getty Images

Vidhi Doshi in Mumbai-Wednesday 22 June 2016

Farmers in east India are calling for action from the government after at least 93 people died in lightning storms across the country in two days.

A storm in Bihar state killed at least 56 people and injured another 28, mostly in rural areas, and authorities said a further 37 people had died in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Jharkand and Madhya Pradesh.

Lal Babu Usvaha, a farmer from Kanti Butiya village near the city of Muzaffarpur in Bihar, said: “Work is work. We can’t stop because of the weather. We have to keep working in the fields. But we feel scared when we see so many clouds, so much electricity in the sky.”

Usvaha said the government should help farmers working in the fields, who make up a large proportion of the thousands of Indians who die in lightning strikes every year. “We need help, but what will the government do? What has the government ever done for farmers? We have so many problems, but they don’t care.”

Saffan Kumar, another farmer, said: “We can’t stay at home and we can’t go out. We’re stuck. We are willing to do anything, if the government can help us. We’re prepared to do what they say.”

Lightning strikes are relatively common in India during the June to October monsoon, which hit the southern coast earlier this month, but this week’s toll is particularly high.

Rakesh Kumar Singh, the secretary of a Bihar farmers’ collective called Jan Nirman Kendra, said Tuesday’s storm began at about 3pm in the district of Samastipur. “I was driving, and the light in the sky was so bright that I couldn’t see anything,” he said. “But I was too scared to stop, so I kept driving. It was as though there was a war happening in the sky.”

In the village of Panchayat Chowk, a coconut tree was felled by lightning, killing a man. Another man has gone missing in the village. Singh said: “Before the rains came farmers were worried about drought. Now that it’s raining, they are working in the fields all day, and the rain can start at any time. The farmers know not to stand under trees or in open fields, so they run to the nearest shelter they can find.

“There are many more deaths all around Bihar, and the famers are very worried,” he said, adding that years of perceived government inaction meant many farmers had lost faith in it to help them.

“There are hundreds of thousands of farmers in Bihar … The government can’t do anything. Whatever has to be done, we will have to do ourselves.”

The government has announced that it will give 400,000 rupees (£4,000) to each of the lightning victims’ families to provide relief. Other relief funds may also be accessible to injured farmers, depending on the severity of their injuries.

More than 2,500 people were killed by lightning in India in 2014, according to the National Crime Records Bureau, the most recent figures available.

Ginger and acupressure 'options for morning sickness'

22 June 2016

Taking ginger or using acupressure on the wrist may help some women with mild morning sickness, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) says.

Its guidance suggests these therapies could offer alternatives to women who want to avoid medication.

But it says anti-sickness drugs and hospital treatment are important in more severe cases.

The recommendations are in line with advice from NHS watchdog NICE.

Nausea and vomiting affects about 80% of pregnant women.

'Lack of understanding'

For many, it disappears within the first four months - though symptoms are not confined to the morning hours as its commonly used name suggests.

In its first guidance on the issue, the RCOG says treatment can vary around the UK and there is an occasional lack of understanding of the condition's severity.

Its guidelines weigh up the evidence for a range of treatments - including complementary therapies - and set out specific options depending on how severe the condition is.

Anti-sickness drugs can help in the many cases, it says.

And some women may need day visits to hospitals or longer admissions for fluids and medication.

Ginger biscuits

Meanwhile, for women with mild or moderate symptoms who do not want to use drugs, acupressure (wearing a special bracelet that applies pressure) may help.

The guidance also mentions studies showing that ginger can provide some relief - including one study using ginger biscuits.

But NHS Choices warns that as ginger products are not licensed for medical use in the UK, supplements should be bought only from reputable sources.

And anyone still experiencing problems should seek medical advice.

Meanwhile, the RCOG says hypnosis is not recommended as there is not enough evidence to establish whether it is effective.

For women with more difficult symptoms, including a very severe form, known as hyperemesis gravidarum (HG), specialist treatment, including hospital admission and mental health support, should be offered, it suggests.

Caitlin Dean, who chairs the Pregnancy Sickness Support charity and had HG in three pregnancies, said: "On top of the nausea and vomiting (this could be up to 30 times a day), I had a pounding headache, incredibly heightened sense of smell and excessive saliva.

"My days would be spent lying in bed with a quiet audio-book as I couldn't read or watch TV because it all made me sick.

"I soon became very dehydrated and was admitted to hospital at eight weeks pregnant.

"I was housebound for most of the pregnancy, which made me feel incredibly lonely."

Dr Manjeet Shehmar, lead author of the guidelines, said many women with persistent symptoms were not receiving the treatment they needed.

"Women with persistent nausea can often feel that there is a lack of understanding of their condition," she said.

"They may be unable to eat healthily, have to take time off work and feel a sense of grief or loss for what they perceive to be a normal pregnancy.

"It is therefore vital that women with this condition are given the right information and support and are made aware of the therapeutic and alternative therapies available to help them cope."

Sri Lanka: Broken promises again at the UN?

Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera. Pic: AP.

Sri Lanka President Maithripala Sirisena. Pic: AP.

by JS Tissainayagam-21st June 2016

THE United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) sessions now underway in Geneva gives another opportunity to Sri Lanka to trumpet the progress it is making on transitional justice. However, there is scant evidence of ‘progress’ on the ground because the government has either gone back, or done very little, to make good its pledges. Unless the international community calls Colombo’s bluff, victims of human rights violations cannot look forward either to justice or closure.

The Geneva sessions assume significance because of an oral update on how well transitional justice in Sri Lanka is being implemented. Transitional justice mechanisms were spelt out and adopted unanimously by the UNHRC in September 2015 throughResolution 30/1, which Sri Lanka co-sponsored.

The resolution was a result of the tangled politics that followed the country’s 30-year civil war ending in May 2009 with the military defeat of LTTE rebels at the hands of government troops. Mass violence against civilians gave rise to accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity against both combatants.

Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera outlined a suite of four transitional justice mechanisms at the UNHRC in 2015: a Commission for Truth, Justice, Reconciliation and Non-recurrence; a judicial body with an Office of Special Counsel set up by statute; an Office of Missing Persons; and an Office of Reparations. He also promised these institutions would only be set up after consulting the people – especially the victims / survivors. Sri Lanka agreed to usher in an environment conducive for reconciliation by repealing the Prevention of Terrorism Act and reviewing other security legislation. These promises were woven into the text of Resolution 30/1.

But whether the government is committed to implementing these pledges is questionable. This article will highlight four grey areas: 1) a dearth of systematic public consultations, 2) obstacles in the OMP for aggrieved citizens to seek justice, 3) rejection by political leaders to include foreign judges and prosecutors in judicial mechanisms and 4) the farce of repealing the PTA.

In Resolution 30/1 Sri Lanka committed to, and the international community supported, “broad national consultations… of victims and civil society… which will inform the design and implementation of these processes…” On October 29, 2015, Samaraweera addressed a group of CSOsand gave them a two week deadline to make submissions on designing the public consultation process. Certain CSOs operating in Northern and Eastern Sri Lanka, where the vast majority of the victims reside, sent the Foreign Ministry their views. The common thread in the CSO submissions was that consultations should not take place in the repressive militarised environment of Sri Lanka’s North and East.

In January 2016 the government appointed the Consultation Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms, an 11-member body of civil society activists, tasked to undertake national level consultations on transitional justice.

After an abeyance of activity for several months, the Foreign Ministry called a meeting of select CSOs on May 9 and unveiled the structure of the OMP – in a two-page leaflet. Hurried moves to set up the OMP raised a flurry of protests on the lack of consultation. A group of civil society activists working with families of the disappeared wrote to Samaraweera, “We categorically state that an OMP that is designed without proper consultation with the victims and their communities would be unacceptable.”

The concerns of CSOs and others fell on deaf ears. The government gazetted a bill to establish the OMP on May 27 without meaningful consultations. In fact it was only between  June 11-13 that the Consultation Task Force had its first training programme of CSOs on consulting victims in each district to input into the designing of the OMP structure (among others things).

The OMP bill makes plain why the government ignored holding systematic, wide-ranging consultations with victims before preparing the document. The victims and the government differ in their views on the OMP’s prosecutorial function.

As he outlined his government’s vision for the OMP in Geneva last year, Samaraweera declared it would be “based on the principle of the families’ right to know.” But families of the disappeared have other ideas: they believe that the OMP should help aggrieved families of the disappeared (victims) to prosecute alleged perpetrators.

Draft legislation for the OMP has paid scant regard to such sentiments. If the government has its way, not only will the victims be unable to use the OMP to prosecute perpetrators, but the clause “the findings of the OMP will not give rise to any criminal or civil liability,” will bar individual citizens from initiating legal proceedings using the OMP’s findings even in existing courts of law. “By stating this [that findings will not give rise to any civil or criminal liability] the authorities have conceded the OMP will not enable victims from finding justice and accountability,” said Lawyer K. S. Ratnavel, who handles cases on behalf of victims of extra-judicial killings and massacres perpetrated by Sri Lanka’s security forces, including habeas corpus cases of the disappeared. He added that “Accountability and truth-seeking are two sides of the same coin and one cannot be excluded for the other.”

Following criticism that Sri Lanka could not establish a credible judicial mechanism to try war crimes, especially by military personnel, Resolution 30/1 calls for “participation in a Sri Lankan judicial mechanism … Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers and authorised prosecutors and investigators.”

This, arguably, is the portion of the resolution that has met with the most sustained resistance from the government. Government and opposition politician have decried this as an infringement on Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and an insult to its institutions. A recent high-profile denunciation of foreign judges came from President Maithripala Sirisena: “Very clearly we do not need foreign judges … If necessary we can obtain foreign technical support.” Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe too hasrejected the idea of foreign judges.

That foreign involvement in the judicial mechanism should not be limited to ‘technical support’ has been vigorously contested by victims and CSOs who work with them. Its importance was given renewed emphasis by Stephen Rapp, former U.S. ambassador-at-large for global criminal justice. In an interview with Tamil Guardian, he said, “having internationals can help both capacity (of the court) and can also give the victims in whatever communities greater confidence that these will be decided independently and not on some political basis.”

Finally there appears to be a game of smoke and mirrors being played with repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). In Resolution 30/1 the government is committed to repealing, reviewing and replacing the PTA with “anti-terrorism legislation in line with contemporary international best practices.” 

In March, Samaraweera claimed in parliament that the Law Commission had submitted draft legislation on this. In June, a newspaper reported three pieces of legislation would replace the PTA. While the public has not seen it, opposition parliamentarian M. A. Sumanthiran said, “I am given to understand that the [law commission] draft has been dumped and … a new piece of legislation has been drafted which I am told is worse than the PTA.”

Meanwhile, arrests under the PTA continue. The spate of arrests before the visit of Juan Mendez, the UN special rapporteur on torture, and the continued surveillance of CSOs working with victims in Sri Lanka’s North and East have a chilling effect. Future consultations of victims on transitional justice will probably take place in such an environment.

This is a snapshot of how the government has gone back on what it promised in Geneva in September 2015. Samaraweera’s solemn plea last year “trust us…” rings hollow.

There is no doubt that this year too Sri Lanka’s UN delegation will embellish the sordid performance of its government with conciliatory words and artful phrases. But the international community should insist on course correction by Colombo through both a strong oral update by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights later this month and by the co-sponsors of Resolution 30/1 continuing to monitor – even after High Commissioner submits his final report in March 2017 – Colombo’s commitment to transitional justice.

Demographic, political and institutional barriers to accountability remain in Sri Lanka say panellists at UNHRC   20 June 2016 Together against Genocide, launched its report “No Justice, No Truth: Unfulfilled Promises of UN resolution 30-1 (Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights)” at the 32nd session of the United Nations Human Rights Council last week. The event saw diplomats addressed by a panel including the director of Together Against Genocide (TAG) Jan Jananayagam, Barrister at Mansfield Chambers Shivani Jegarajah, and Fellow at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation and Washington Post columnist Dr Kate Cronin-Furman. Introducing the event, the director of Together Against Genocide (TAG) said that the report, to be released later this week, found that minimal progress had been made by Sri Lanka on the recommendations of the High Commissioner for Human Rights which were referenced in the United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 30-1. After outlining the methodology behind the progress report, Ms Jananayagam said,  “On looking at the recommendations of the resolution, and mapping them to which of the 33 recommendations of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Investigation into Sri Lanka’s (OISL) report they refer to, our conclusion is that very little has been implemented.” Speaking on institutional reform Ms Jananayagam further noted the “Sri Lanka simply doesn’t have the legal framework to deal with the systemic crimes against humanity outlined in the OISL report. On security sector reform, she added that the intense militarisation of the Tamil North-East remained and raised concern at Sri Lanka’s selective attempts to vet military soldiers, stating, “The North-East is the most highly militarised regions in the world. If Sri Lanka vets the troops it sends out on peacekeeping missions without betting those remaining on the island, it actually means that you have a higher concentration of mass atrocities perpetrators on the streets of the Tamil North-East.  So partial implementation of security can be counter productive. “ Dr Kate Cronin Furman went on to highlight underlying political barriers in progressing on accountability and transitional justice in Sri Lanka. Noting demographical challenges in Sri Lanka, Dr Furman said, “In practice accountability and justice in places were mass atrocities occurred also depends on politics. Transitional justice is a very hard sell when either of two things are true. One is that Perpetrators remain powerful even though they are not explicitly in office. The other is when large sections of the voting population oppose accountability. Unfortunately in Sri Lanka both these things are true.” Highlighting that pursuing accountability and truth telling was extremely difficult when Sri Lanka’s majority community was against such measures, Dr Furman added, “Perhaps a bigger issue is the opposition of the Sinhalese population. The demographics in Sri Lanka make it extremely difficult in terms of implementing transitional justice. The Sinhalese make up ¾ of the population. And for most part this is a population that views the military as war heroes, does not believe that war crimes occurred and views calls for accountability as an attack.” Dr Furman went to add that other transitional justice processes had been different because even if the perpetrators were I npower, the voting public wanted to see accountability and justice, so a compromise was met. “The implication of these dynamics Is that when perpetrators are still  powerful, but the voting public does want to see accountability we see truth processes. Truth commissions without the prosecution, that’s what we’ve seen in Chile, Liberia and South Africa,” she said. Adding that the current domestic conditions didn’t look conducive for transitional justice, no matter how genuine a select few individuals of the new governance were, Dr Furman said, “What all of this says is that Sri Lanka is a very hard case for Transitional Justice even if members of new administration are sincere, a robust process looks unlikely under the domestic conditions.” Calling on the need for sustained pressure and the international community to be aware of the political realities on the ground in Sri Lanka she added “To me this means that the over enthusiastic response we’ve seen by governments to some small progress by the new government are naive to the political realities on the ground.  Even with international involvement, the only way this works is if domestic politics shift. If the international community is serious about justice for mass atrocities in Sri Lanka, it needs to be pushing for security sector reform and pushing for an extensive outreach to the Sinhalese public to educate them on atrocities that occurred and need for accountability.” Jan Janayagam further highlighted Sri Lanka’s failure to effectively address the truth telling aspect of the resolution, noting, “Even in truth telling, there is a selective domestic implementation. Sri Lanka is yet to circulate the OISL report in Sri Lanka, or even screen the No Fire Zone documentary domestically.” Barrister at Mansfield Chambers Ms Shivani Jegarajah went on to stress that Sri Lanka’s lack of progress on accountability was not purely due to incompetence, stating, “The point I really want to get a cross, is that the failure implement the UN recommendations is not due to incompetence. It is completely consistent with a sophisticated political agenda that was set out in Sri Lanka’s Paranagama report in August 2015. As early as August 2015, the Sirisena government had a clear poetical ideology in terms of what they were going to do. The Paranagama report says it does not regard the need for prosecutions as a position of international law.” Highlighting the fundamental problem of a lack of political will even among the academics of Sri Lanka for accountability, she said, “It’s not an institutional problem, it’s a fundamental problem of political view. Sri Lanka’s Paranagama report very clearly argues that prosecuting people an obstacle to reconciliation. It’s a clear and robust rejection of everything the UN negotiations have been about.” “The report argues that there’s nothing in international law that requires you to prosecute and bring perpetrators to justice.. The report adds that the best way to go forward is through reconciliation. That has been Sri Lanka’s position since 2015. Even if Sri Lanka ratifies international treaties, there is an absence of domestic legislation that criminalises war crimes mass atrocities and disappearances,” Ms Jegarajah added. The event also saw the screening of Together Against Genocide’s latest documentary “Voices from the North.”

Wigneswaran against a domestic mechanism to probe war crime allegations 

Wednesday, 22 June 2016

Tamil National Alliance (TNA) strongly opposes a domestic mechanism to probe the war crime allegations, the Chief Minister of Northern Province C.V. Wigneswaran says.

Responding to reporters in Jaffna, the Chief Minister said a domestic mechanism can be considered only if international judges are present.

Wigneswaran made these comments when BBC questioned him on what he discussed during his meetings with ambassadors of six countries and delegations of European Union, who visited him from time to time.

President Maithripala Sirisena recently reiterated his stance that there will be no foreign judges in the domestic mechanism which is to be established to probe the alleged war crimes and human right violations during the three-decade long conflict with the Tamil Tiger terrorists.

“We don’t need foreign judges. We can resolve any problem within the country without foreign intervention,” the President re-iterated commenting on his previously declared position. “If necessary, we can obtain foreign technical support, but without commitments or conditions attached,” the President said.

According to the Chief Minister, at present there is no atmosphere in the country for justice to be done, not just in courts but everywhere else as well.

The Chief Minister said so far any request made by the Tamil National Alliance as a political party from the government has not been fulfilled and added that the Tamil People’s problems cannot be resolved while depending on the protests by nationalist parties in the South.

Wigneswaran said he apprised the international delegates visiting the North that the only solution to the ethnic problem of Tamils is to merge the North and the East and establish a federal government system.

The Chief Minister further said that he plans to present all the facts before the next session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

INT. HR NGOS TO ZEID: UN BACKED SRI LANKA PROCESS IN DANGER OF LOOSING CONFIDENCE

21/06/2016

To: The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Dear High Commissioner,

Subject: Open letter on the oral update on Sri Lanka at the 32nd session of the UN Human Rights Council We write to you ahead of your oral update to the UN Human Rights Council on Sri Lanka.

October 1, 2015 marked an important milestone in the UN’s engagement with Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka joined the international consensus and cosponsored resolution 30/1 at the UN Human Rights Council. The resolution called on the Office of the High Commissioner to “assess

progress on the implementation of its recommendations and other relevant processes related to accountability reconciliation and human rights.” The resolution identified your forthcoming oral update as a midway point in this process of assessment prior to a
comprehensive progress report next March.

Rights Commissioner Zeid, image by Reuters

While the government’s assurances on progress have been plentiful its performance on the ground has been mixed and not befitting expectations outlined in your report and in the resolution as well as those of victims and people on the ground. There have been some

positive developments on international cooperation such as the government’s recent decision to ratify the Convention against Enforced Disappearances and Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the extension of standing invitations to Special

Procedures and the visit of a number of Special Procedures, your own visit and that of other UN officials.

At the same time there have been mixed signals on the government’s commitments made through the October resolution, at the highest level of the government. There have been distressing reports on the ongoing use of arrests under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) instead of the regular criminal code. The PTA is a draconian law consistently condemned by UN bodies and officials and which the government had pledged to repeal as part of its October commitment. Repealing the PTA and dealing with the outstanding cases of those still detained under the law should be a foremost priority.

While there is more space for freedom of expression and assembly, incidents of intimidation are still taking place. For example the WGEID reported incidents of intimidation of those who met them, and persons planning to meet you on your visit reportedly were also subjected to intimidation a day before your visit. Some land occupied by the military has been released, but much has not been.

A draft law of the Office of the Missing Persons (OMP), one of the four transitional justice mechanisms committed to by the government, has been published with minimal consultations, and before the Task Force established to conduct consultations had even begun face-to-face consultations with affected communities and citizens. It is crucial that laws for the other three mechanisms are passed by March 2017, but unlike the OMP, with greater transparency and allowing sufficient opportunities and time for genuine consultations. It is also important to clearly indicate the inter-linkages and complementarity of the different mechanisms and how they will together guarantee rights to truth, criminal justice, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence, and not undermine any of these rights and the working of each mechanism.

We are convinced that the government needs to meet clear benchmarks in relation to commitments it had made to its own people and the international community. Mindful of the long history of failed efforts towards reconciliation and accountability for human rights violations in Sri Lanka, we are worried that in March 2017, the absence of clear progress may cause a loss of confidence in the current UN backed process for justice, accountability and reconciliation.

Member states of the Council have indicated that their engagement with the Sri Lankan government will be guided by your oral update on the implementation of the October Council resolution on Sri Lanka. This expectation has been heightened by your and your

staff’s visits to Sri Lanka and those of the Special Procedures. Thus, we believe it is crucial for your oral update to identify areas where progress has been made, as well as areas where there is a lack of progress and incorporate clear benchmarks that include immediately achievable steps.

At the end of your visit to Sri Lanka in February this year, you identified some of these steps in stating that “the military needs to accelerate the return of land it has seized and is still holding to its rightful owners” and “the size of the military force in the North and the East can be reduced to a level that is less intrusive and intimidating, as a first step in security sector reform.”

In your statement to the current session of the Council on June 13, you identified a comprehensive transitional justice strategy as critical for the government’s implementation of its commitments. In this regards, the establishment, without delay, of a judicial mechanism with full participation of international judges, lawyers and prosecutors, is an element of the Council resolution (and the OISL and OHCHR reports on a judicial mechanism) that represents an essential benchmark for the credibility of the overall process.

Please accept the assurances of our highest consideration,

Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
Franciscans International
Human Rights Watch
International Commission of Jurists
International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR)
International Service for Human Rights

“D” Day – 23rd June

By Lal Keerthie Fernando –June 21, 2016

Lal Keerthie Fernando

A forum of discussions and freedom for research. Facts and sanity going together. Sinhalese nationalism being construed as racism while it remains in print form for others to read. Tamil nationalism too, being construed as racism. Nationalism and racism doesn’t seem to go hand in hand in SL. Many years ago, it was so. The debating forum in this web in this digital age has opened up not known stories for analysis and judgement of an ensuing muddle. We have never ever heard so much of the truth from all sides of troubled ethnic groups. Knowledge is power, it is being said; true, but information has more power in this day and age. This is what is about.

The war started almost in 1983, ended in 2009. All this time the nation and it’s people so much confined to fact finding missions; hate driven ideologies and military might, undermining the other side view – the minorities, the tamils. Going through it over the years, provides us reasons to accept, what a nation of ignorant people, we must have been, not knowing our own identities, permitting others from outside to abuse and manipulate for the betterment of the minorities; this is what others from outside imagined, not knowing so much at all, saying mea culpa now, in the corridors of power. They had the right too, in a way. But why fear of mistakes now? Free media or is it web terror of our truth? Ours was bad taste in such good culture. Yes. Reading through provocative argumentation presented much in research from both sides of the spectrum, once a theatre of war, is now far more pleasing reading. A criss-cross version of a civilised puzzle being brought to the fore and is bound to remain. Freedom at it`s best. It is not a question, who won the war but how the media in it`s most restrictive forms during the war was able to drum up the kind of nationalism, rather than hate that brought in victory for peace. If facts on divergence ethnic resemblance was brought to the fore, then, we would have never had that war – 1983. Only the man closer to shore knew the fallacy and difference between a Jaffna tamil and Batticoloa tamil. RAW, was fast enough to carve out a wedge, knew the difference well which we only know now, understood the problem, before CT came in. The division made, became the beginning of the end of the LTTE.

The free media wasn’t there then; the role of the internet none; writer and the reader in complete oblivion. What never took place in the past for readership and writing is there today; for furtherance of peace. Of course, there is the “odd man”, himself, insulting the saffron robe. These types are now a fact in Europe and elsewhere; not in saffron colour but in a riot of colours.

Their point of view is vicious enough to re-unite such vast minorities, Tamils and Sinhalese alike, becoming together, while others fear the union, in SL too. A common problem of ours is now theirs. The media and the politicians in SL remains – a light of eminence. We in SL had the types of what Europe is entertaining now, in the name of democracy; they, hiding behind a veil of democracy.

Democracy, permits dissent, the state intervening accordingly, drawing the line. That particular line of demarcation is now taken over by the media on the web. Therefore, we could continue to discuss; check and balances being put forward, overruling, politician and other agencies of extremism, to be null and void. War crime tribunals have much more facts here; read first – as the archives have been closed for eternity, elsewhere outside SL. When the truth is alone, weak is the rule of law.

Read More

President and PM need to agree on policy parameters

By Jehan Perera-June 20, 2016, 8:34 pm 

 

There have been indications of a growing gap between the positions taken by the UNP and SLFP which are the two main constituent parties of the National Unity Government. Some months ago it took the form of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe speaking positively in terms of international involvement in the country’s post-war accountability process while President Maithripala Sirisena said the reverse. At the present time the point of concern would be the fate of the Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran. The SLFP has opposed his reappointment. On the other hand, the UNP led by the Prime Minister have expressed their confidence in the Governor’s contribution to the economy as a member of the government team. This is an issue on which the two parties will have to find a mutually acceptable solution if their relationship is not to be soured and they continue to cooperate on important issues as they have been doing so far for the past one and a half years since the election of the new government.

The defeat of the no-confidence motion against Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake by a large 145 to 51 margin showed that the government’s majority in Parliament remains secure. The failure of the Joint Opposition to obtain the support of SLFP members who have joined the government was a major blow to their efforts to portray themselves as a government-in-waiting. Although members of the Joint Opposition continue to make political speeches that ostensibly have public backing, their weakness in Parliament was manifested by the magnitude of the defeat of the no-confidence motion they had presented with an appearance of confidence in themselves. There appears to be a fall in the public campaign of the Joint Opposition after this political debacle. Former coalition partners of theirs from the CWC and EPDP have joined the government. To make matters worse for them, one of their key leaders has been arrested on charges of financial fraud.

The Joint Opposition’s blighted hope was that SLFP members of the government would join them in supporting the no-confidence motion as it was against the Finance Minister who is from the UNP which has been the long standing rival of the SLFP. Had this occurred the vote of no-confidence would have become much more narrow, and more significantly a rift would have become more evident between the two coalition partners of the National Unity Government. However, President Maithripala Sirisena was able to exert his influence over his party members who had joined the government. To make his intentions clear, the President also stayed within his chambers in Parliament for the duration of the no-confidence motion thereby making a public display of his commitment to the National Unity Government. Indeed, this public display of commitment by the President would have halted the negative vote from amongst the SLFP group in Parliament and was the chief reason for the defeat of the Joint Opposition’s no-confidence motion with such a large majority.

COMPETING FACTIONS

At the present time the combination of the two main political parties in the Government of National Unity gives the government a solid majority to engage in political reform and constitutional reform. Both President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe who jointly head the government are non-racist leaders in whom the ethnic and religious minorities can place their trust. The relationship between the political leaders of the Tamil and Muslim parties and the government leadership bears out this trust. The trust and goodwill that exists between them at the highest levels of the polity provides an example to the people in the country at large. However, there have been other areas where the leaderships of the two main constituent parties of the government appear to have taken different positions. One would be the investigations into acts of impunity and corruption during the period of the Rajapaksa government.

These investigations have been proceeding slower than anticipated especially in the court of public opinion, which is judging the government very harshly on this issue. The blame for this has fallen on both sides. The SLFP members who are now part of the National Unity Government were also a part of the previous Rajapaksa government which stands accused of gross acts of impunity and corruption. It is not surprising that in these circumstances there is public speculation that the slow progress of the investigations is due to the natural reluctance of those whose past conduct is to be investigated to make their indictment for crimes any easier. On the other hand, there is also public speculation that the slow pace of the investigations is due to a deal that has been struck between those in power at the current time and those not in power.

It will be difficult to continue to develop public confidence if the positions taken by the two main constituent parties of the National Unity Government are in opposition to each other. Although the challenge mounted by the Joint Opposition appears to be diminishing, especially after the defeat of the no-confidence motion against the Finance Minister, the sentiments of SLFP voters would also need to be safeguarded. They would prefer a government that is totally SLFP. There are reports of a faction within the SLFP that wants to form their own government without any formal UNP participation but drawing from defecting members of the UNP. Similarly there are those with the UNP who would wish to form a government drawn entirely from the UNP and without SLFP participation except in the form of defectors. The need to conduct local government elections at some time in the future, but sooner rather than later, would set the UNP and SLFP against each other, which adds to the possibility of a weakening of the National Unity Government in the near future.

STAYING TOGETHER

The formation of the National Unity Government with a substantial majority in Parliament which comes close to 2/3 of the seats in Parliament offers the country the best chance it has ever had to resolve its long outstanding problems, including the vexed one of the ethnic conflict. The political challenge today therefore is to ensure that the National Unity Government continues until such time as the major political problems which have come down the decades are finally resolved. The ethnic conflict is not the only issue to be tackled at the present time. Other issues that need to be responded to include restructuring the Sri Lankan economy to face the needs and opportunities of the global market; and responding to the UN Human Rights Council resolution of October 2015 without generating too much of political agitation within the country. Indeed the Prime Minister is reported to have said that he will work in silence and leave it to the people to decide later whether what was done was good or bad.

In keeping the National Unity Government together it is important that the leaders of the two main parties should closely consult each other and together establish the basic parameters of the government policies they wish to take forward. They demonstrated this ability during the presidential election campaign of January 2015. They reached mutual agreement on issues of good governance and tackling corruption and impunity. Whatever was said thereafter, during and in the immediate aftermath of the formation of the new government, was within the parameters that had already been set. Unfortunately, this close consultation and cooperation appears to have diminished at the present time. As a result there is a gap that has opened up between the statements of the two parties which can threaten the stability and effectiveness of the government in the longer period.

It appears that the UNP part of the government is focusing its attention on its international audience and is seeking to cater to their concerns in the hope of international aid and investment that can leap frog the economy to the 21st century. On the other hand, the SLFP part of the government is focused on the local audience, which is more interested in issues of social welfare and national sovereignty. Both these approaches are necessary for the country and its people to prosper. This suggests that the President and Prime Minister who head the two main constituent parties of the National Unity Government s should devise a mechanism that would ensure that they consult with each other and agree on the parameters of all nationally significant policies prior to separately making assertions about them.

Maithri Vs Mangala: war on Foreign Policy

What Maithri ought to tell those pro-Mahinda groups that come to him is, accept the 8 January mandate, whereas what Dayan [ Jayatilleka] is now coming and telling Maithri is to accept defeated Mahinda’s voter base. That is where the fault lies.

by Upul Joseph Fernando 

( June 22, 2016, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Some weeks ago, an application was received, requesting to allocate a hall of the Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute, to hold a conference. Maithripala Sirisena was mentioned as the chief guest in it, and this conference was organized by an officer of the Presidential Secretariat. The Kadirgamar Institute after receiving the approval forwarded same to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which comes under the purview of Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mangala Samaraweera.

When permission was requested from Mangala to hold this conference, he read the list of speakers, and after seeing the name of Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka in it, he declined to grant permission. However, Mangala was not aware that this conference was being organized by the Presidential Secretariat. When Maithri was informed that Mangala had declined to grant permission, the former instructed to hold the conference at another venue. Thereafter, the BMICH was chosen to hold the conference.

The agenda of the Tigers

In any case, the foreign policies of Dayan and Mangala have come in for heavy flak in front of Maithri himself. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe too, has been castigated. On the same day, in an interview with a television channel Dayan made an announcement that Mangala and Ranil are working according to the agenda of the Tigers, while the Presidential Secretariat that organized this conference interpreted it as Maithri’s foreign policy. Now, it is Dayan who has become Maithri’s foreign policy theoretician.

At the last presidential election, Dayan worked with zest and zeal to make Mahinda Rajapaksa emerge victorious, while identifying Maithri and Ranil as puppets in the hands of the Tigers and the Western countries. It was Dayan who spearheaded the moves and was among the front-liners who inspired Mahinda to come back when the latter went and hid in Medamulana following his election defeat.

When the inaugural rally at Nugegoda was held based on the agenda to whip up support for Mahinda to return, Mahinda handed over his message to be read by Dayan. According to reports, it was Dayan who played a key role when preparing this message.The label of ‘traitor’ From that point of time Dayan attacked Maithri, Chandrika and Ranil by pasting the label of ‘traitor’ on them. Yet, at the BMICH, Dayan observed, it is Maithri who follows the best foreign policy. When Dayan was extolling Maithri, while at the same time attacking Ranil and Mangala, Maithri was listening to that tirade. What Dayan did then was exploding a political bomb – a bomb that could blast the government. This was a time bomb that could tear apart the Maithri-Ranil Government into two and Dayan maneuvered this well.

Whether he was a Trojan horse sent by Mahinda is a matter for conjecture. Dayan even before he left to attend the conference had met the Rajapaksas , it is reported. It was the Rupavahini television channel that gave the opportunity to Dayan to castigate Ranil and Mangala after the conclusion of the conference. Now, Dayan’s verbal onslaughts against Ranils and Mangalas are also backed by the license issued by Maithri.

At that conference however, a most intriguing incident took place.

One of the speakers was Dr. Jayadeva Uyanagoda who worked with commitment for Maithri to win and to defeat Mahinda. He made an attempt to defuse Dayan’s bomb. He said, the voters by electing Maithri on 8 January demonstrated his voter base. He divided the voters into three categories – the UNP votes, Civil society organizations and the minority votes. He emphasized but for these voter bases, Maithri had no other, and Maithri should take his stand there, he added.

In other words, what he said impliedly was, it is because Maithri is giving leadership to such a voter base, Maithri is recognized by Obama of America, Cameron of Britain, Abe of Japan, Modi of India and Angela Merkel of Germany, and because Maithri is representing the views of that voter base.

The pro-Rajapaksa groups

What he said was true. Maithri must win over the pro-Rajapaksa groups. H e must win over Dayan who is a clever foreign policy specialist and a top notch diplomat. Maithri, of course, must win over individuals like Dayan, but not by acquiescing in Dayan’s views, rather by making Dayan to accept his views.

Mahinda won over pro-Ranil groups and pro-Chandrika groups in this manner. A case in point is, Prof. Dr. G.L. Peiris. When he was with Ranil and Chandrika he was for federalism. Even Ranil did not speak about devolving of power as much as he. GL was a peace advocate and a staunch supporter of Western NGOs. In short he was a traitor according to the Mahinda groups. Yet, GL was taken in turning everything topsy-turvy.

After joining with the Rajapaksas, GL began furiously attacking the Western countries, the NGOs and Federalism from day one. Like how Dayan after aligning with Maithri is attacking Ranil and Mangala today, there was room for GL after aligning with Mahinda to attack Wimal and Hela Urumaya because they were his enemies. What GL did on the other hand was, he befriended them first and became patriotic.
That was to fall in line with and represent Mahinda’s voter base.

What Maithri ought to tell those pro-Mahinda groups that come to him is, accept the 8 January mandate, whereas what Dayan is now coming and telling Maithri is to accept defeated Mahinda’s voter base. That is where the fault lies.

In any event as soon as the conference was over, Maithri went near Uyangoda to have his tea. Whether that was to defuse Dayan’s bomb is not known yet.