The April 5 and the legacy of rebellion …

‘‘Every act of rebellion expresses a nostalgia for innocence and an appeal to the essence of being.’’ - Albert Camus

3 April 2019

OnApril 5, 1971, a political movement known popularly then as the Che Guevara Group, made an unprecedented and unexpected attack on all the Police stations and other crucial state institutions in a bid to grab political power in a single night. Their leader was Rohana Wijeweera, who after a botched scholarship course at the Lumumba University in Russia had started a political movement later to become known as the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna or the JVP. He like many of his comrades, belonged to the Sinhala Buddhist rural petty bourgeois and agrarian families. The Political movement thus came on to the national political scene almost half a century ago, has been one of the most important and controversial phenomena in modern day Sri Lankan politics, repercussions of whose activities of rebellion are still felt in many aspects of life. 
What have Wijeweera and the JVP gained in their attempts to grab state power twice; first through the Che Guevara Uprising on April 5, 1971 and subsequently through its second insurgency that lasted more than two years, from 1988 to 1990? Detractors would say nothing gainful in addition to the massive blood loss and carnage that has left , arguably more than one hundred thousand lives taken together. The resources lost to the nation in the form of its most brilliant and faithful sons and daughters will never be recovered. 

Detraction 

Lionel Bopage, a one time leader of the JVP and seen by many as one of the leading ideologues of the Leftist political party, upon his resignation from his party, wrote a letter in which he portended a bloody and a grisly fate for the entire movement given the modus operandi of Wijeweera and the leaders of the party. Victor Ivan, one of the stalwarts of 1971 lashes out at Wijeweera for not being able to withstand the pressure from the then JR Jayawardene regime without falling to the trap of underground politics no matter how unfair and unsubstantiated the decision to proscribe the party in the wake of the July Riots in 1983. Veterans of the Rebellion like G. I. D. Dharmasekera have been openly critical of the leadership style that Wijeweera followed. In their opinion Wijeweera was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousand of Sinhala youth including his own. 
Does it mean that the JVP had not served any purpose since its inception as a party in 1965? I do not subscribe to that line of thinking. I do believe that the JVP did fulfill many of the purposes for which the rural youth of the island nation gathered around WIjeweera, with his fiery oratory and in depth knowledge of Marxist Leninist ideology. At a time when the old left was decaying and dying and the very principles of socialist or left leaning ideologies were becoming the laughing stock in local politics, Wijeweera, became a viable Third Force, as is evidenced by the electoral results of the first ever Presidential Election held in Sri Lanka, where he became the third most voted candidate, easily surpassing veteran politicians such as Colvin R. de Silva,Vasudeva Nanayakkara and Amirthalingam. The organizational and propaganda skills that they displayed even from the seventies was unparalleled in Sri Lanka and remains so up to date. For a party that has not been in State power as a single entity , their organizing and mobilizing skills and speed are far superior to those of other main parties. 

The bugle call for justice 

But above all , the mark that the JVP placed since its entrance into mainstream politics in 1994 on the local political scene as a force against corruption, violence and injustice is unparalleled. It has captured the social psyche as a fighting and just force so much so , that any person who talks about rights and fights for them is indiscriminately called a JVPer or ‘JVP karaya’, a tribute indeed to Wijeweera and the founding members of this somewhat enigmatic party. Whenever a grave injustice is done to a poor person, it is to the JVP they run, inevitably. 
Yet one unexplained mystery remains; despite its record as a disciplined and untainted party in relation to the two main political parties, their otherwise multi-pronged successes do not seem to translate into electoral victories. The alliances with which they contest elections either betray them in terms of the policies for which they join hands with such groups , thus making it imperative that they distance them from such opportunists. On the other hand there always seems to be a more urgent calling nationally that the voter finds himself bound to go for one of the major parties , obviously to be disappointed as experience shows, thus denying the JVP’s formidable electoral success. 

Moral high ground 

Ever since their re-emergence as a mainstream political party the JVP has been the yardstick in terms of whose conduct the status of other political parties or leaders are to be ascertained. The propriety, sobriety and integrity displayed by each and every representative from Parliamentary to Pradesheeya Sabha level talks volumes about the quality of the membership as well as leadership. A moral high ground that they almost haughtily maintain stems from the fact that there is little room within that party mechanism for corruption . The exemplary manner in which they conduct their electioneering not stooping to the level of the other parties in terms of the ‘Manape Balu Poraya’ or the ‘Dog fight’ for preferential vote as well as the discipline shown in propaganda and campaigning is simply unparallel in local politics. 

Frozen Fire?

The movie ‘Ginnen Upan Seethala’ which has been in film halls island wide, is too romanticising of Wijeweera according to many. A highlighting of the humane and family man over the political and party leader is said to have dominated the plot. It is a wok of art and need not meticulously follow Wijeweera in every step. The enthusiasm shown by the public to watch the film , in itself is testimony to the fact that the Wijeweera of the April 5 fame (or notoriety as some would suggest) has carved a niche for himself in the public psyche as a revolutionary leader who wanted to change the society from down upwards, the revolutionary way, the only way that is left to the down trodden and marginalised masses to stake a claim in governance. Hopefully the hype surrounding the film would entice more people to learn about Wijeweera, the JVP and what happened on April 5, 1971. 
They say it is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all; I dare say it is better, far better, to have rebelled and lost than to have never rebelled at all! 
It is the legacy of such a brave, patriotic and upright generation that will be celebrated on April 5. You can applaud or curse, smile or frown, adulate or lash out. Yet the impact of April 5 is extensive. 
It is nothing short of a trail blazing legacy of rebellion.   

Transitional Justice In Sri Lanka: 2019 & Beyond

By Esther Hoole –

Esther Hoole

In September 2015, the Government endorsed the Human Rights Council Resolution 30/1, and made an unprecedented commitment to transparency and accountability via a transitional justice process. It promised State-endorsed avenues to pursuing truth, justice, reparations and institutional reform, particularly in connection to the conflict. Immediately after the signing of the resolution it appeared that the transitional government was making concrete strides towards effectively dealing with the crimes committed by previous regimes and armed groups.

Three and a half years later, Sri Lanka’s political situation is remains unstable, and any commitment to transitional justice within Government seems to have waned. The political coup at the end of 2018 highlighted the serious cracks within the coalition government, the immense corruption within party politics, the vulnerability of some State institutions to the whims of the President, and the fragility of the entire transition. In relation to transitional justice, the few who supported it from within the Government have increasingly disengaged from it, as resistance to credible accountability grows stronger. Efforts to fulfill the commitments under Resolution 30/1 have been rushed, centered around the Human Rights Council sessions.

In 2019, we approach a series of major elections, that could re-define or put an end to any transitional reform process, including transitional justice. In the few months of the coup, with members of the former regime regaining power, there was an increase in surveillance and threats towards activists and victim groups, as well as the curtailment of media freedom – a reminder that a return to pre-2015 repression is a very possible outcome of these elections.

The prevalent political uncertainty indicates that in Government, there will be little to no political will or energy expended on transitional justice in the coming year, because of the controversy surrounding it. It is likely that any space left for a reformist agenda will be expended on passing a new constitution.

Given this broader context, we are left with the questions – 1) should transitional justice remain a priority in 2019?, and 2) how can transitional justice be advanced in this year despite increasing hurdles?

Transitional justice is underpinned by the global understanding that societies must address legacies of past crimes and human rights abuses to move forward into lasting peace and reconciliation. Although this coming May will mark ten years since the end of the conflict, Sri Lankan society is still far from a general acceptance that crimes were committed by both sides during the conflict, and from a credible accountability process. If we are to transform into a society which – in the long term – is reconciled, egalitarian, democratically stable, and which honours the law, implementing the transitional justice process of Resolution 30/1 is vital.

There is also a more politically realist point to be made here. One of the greatest contributors to the 2015 transition was the overwhelming support of minority communities, which also contain the largest victim communities. If the current government fails to perform on election promises of establishing the truth and judicial accountability within the coming year, it risks losing a significant – perhaps defining – portion of its 2015 voter base. For the continuation of a more liberal government post-2019, and the long-term political stability and peace of Sri Lanka, transitional justice must remain a priority, both domestically and internationally.

It is undeniable however, that the scope for transitional justice in Sri Lanka has narrowed dramatically in the past few years, with little to no political will, and a much stronger opposition. Advocates for transitional justice – diplomats, civil society and media – must alter their approach accordingly. In 2015, the modus operandi was to engage directly with the top tiers of Government – that door is fast closing. In the coming year, stakeholders must prioritize strengthening the gains of the past few years, building capacity and knowledge on transitional justice within lower tiers of government institutions and mobilizing public support for transitional justice.

Read More

A new judicial mechanism cannot be established without amending the constitution

 

4 April 2019

TNA MP M.A. Sumanthiran’s statement to the Parliament made on the 22nd March is unconstitutional. He insisted the “Government” to implement clause 6 of the Geneva (UNHRC) resolution (30/1) or otherwise “we (they) will take steps to move Sri Lanka to the ICC or some other entirely international mechanism”... as “Tamil people will be left with no alternative”. 

Firstly, it to be emphasized that Sumanthiran MP represents a party that obtained little over five hundred thousand votes out of over Three Million Tamils living in Sri Lanka. The total number of votes and seats secured by his party from Northern and Eastern Provinces is less than 50% (Nationally only 4.62%). Emerging Tamil Youth groups publicly criticize MP Sumanthiran and his party. There is no reliable evidence to say (other than fabricated and bias compilations of separatists) that the majority of the Tamils demand for foreign judges to come. Therefore, Sumanthiran did not have the mandate of the Tamils to make that speech on behalf of the Tamils. It was only an ad-hoc statement without authority. 


Clause 6 of the Resolution reads as follows; 

Welcomes the recognition by the Government of Sri Lanka that accountability is essential to uphold the rule of law and to build confidence in the people of all communities of Sri Lanka in the justice system, notes with appreciation the proposal of the Government of Sri Lanka to establish a judicial mechanism with a special counsel to investigate allegations of violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law, as applicable; affirms that a credible justice process should include independent judicial and prosecutorial institutions led by individuals known for their integrity and impartiality; and also affirms in this regard the importance of participation in a Sri Lankan judicial mechanism, including the special counsel’s office, of Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers and authorized prosecutors and investigators;

Accordingly, a new judicial mechanism with judicial and prosecutorial institutions should be established. It requires the establishment of a “special counsel to investigate”. It affirms the importance of participation in judicial mechanism and special counsel’s office (a) Commonwealth and other foreign judges (b) defence lawyers (c) authorised prosecutors and (c) investigators.
 
MP Sumanthiran attempts to equate the intended juridical mechanism with the present High Courts. It is incorrect. The apparent purpose of the mechanism is to “investigate allegations of violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law”. According to him the “contesting parties or the warring parties include on one side the state of Sri Lanka and on the other side a militant group that had the objective of dividing the country”. Under the present system the Attorney General is the prosecuting officer on behalf of the State in High Courts. Therefore it is practically and legally impossible for the Attorney General to prosecute “the State”. Therefore, it is intended by the resolution to create an alternative prosecutor (apparently the special counsel’s office) with powers to prosecute the State. Such a dramatic structural change in the legal system necessarily needs a constitutional amendment. 

Therefore a new “judicial mechanism with a special counsel to investigate” cannot be established without amending the constitution and passing a new law as presently, there is no similar mechanism in Sri Lanka. Power to legislate is vested in the Parliament where MP Sumanthiran is also a member.

Hence it is the Legislature that should initiate the implementation of the clause 6 of the resolution.

However no attempt has so far been made by him or his party to introduce at least a private member bill to that effect. Then how deceptive and illogical for MP Sumanthiran to point the finger at the Government, for not doing an act which he and his party also could have conveniently initiated? 
Next important question is regarding the appointment of foreign judges, lawyers and investigators. MP Sumanthiran cites the case of Victor Ivan and others vs Hon. Sarath N. Silva and others (2001) 1 Sri LR), where the SC held that “Article 107 confers on the President the power of making appointments to the Supreme Court, and does not expressly specify any qualifications or restrictions”. 

Though there are no restrictions to appoint, there is a restriction to get appointed. All judges, lawyers and officers, if to function in a judicial system created by the Parliament, are required to take and subscribe an oath or affirmation in the forms in the Fourth and Seventh Schedules of the Constitution (Articles 107, 157 A(7), 165 and 169(12)). Accordingly those foreigners will have to declare their allegiance (faithfulness) to the Republic of Sri Lanka. Will the domestic laws of those foreigners permit them to take the oath of allegiance to Sri Lanka? 

In terms of the oath they are also bound to uphold and defend the Constitution and more importantly not to “directly or indirectly, in or outside Sri Lanka, support, espouse, promote, finance, encourage or advocate the establishment of a separate State within the territory of Sri Lanka”.

Any conduct done with the objective to establish a separate State (or divide the Country) is a criminal offence leading to conviction by the Court of Appeal (Article 157A (3)). Therefore those judges, lawyers and investigators cannot justify or defend the constitutional crime committed by the militant group (LTTE) fought to separate the Country. Both their acts and motive are crimes. 

The threat to complain to the International Criminal Court (ICC) is serious but, in the given context, impossible. ICC has jurisdiction with respect to crimes committed with respect to state parties to the Rome Statute. Sri Lanka is not a State Party to the Statute. Additionally either the place of commission of the conduct in question or the nationality of the person who committed the crime should be in a State party to the Statute in order to give jurisdiction to ICC. Only exception is when a reference to the Prosecutor (of ICC) is made by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Still there are other restrictions such as that the particular state should be unwilling or unable to carry out the investigation or prosecution etc. The mystery is whether MP Sumanthiran had in mind any of the members of the Security Council, as a country that may support to divide Sri Lanka. 
Paths could also be created to International Criminal Tribunals (ICTs) with the combination of recently passed laws including the Office of Missing Persons Act, Office for Reparation Act and the International convention for the protection of all persons from Enforced Disappearance Act. But no route to ICC or ICTs could possibly be created for the reason of none implementation of clause 6 of the resolution as it deals with a matter that comes well within the sovereignty and independence of this country. 

The Government cannot implement a non-existing mechanism that could only be created by the legislature exercising the sovereignty of the people. It is settled law that Legislature, Judiciary and Executive are the organs of the government. Therefore it is ethically, politically and legally incorrect and misleading for MP Sumanthiran, being a part of the Government (legislature) to criticize the government for not doing an act for which he is also responsible.   It is to be emphasized that a treaty or a covenant (also the resolution co-sponsored by Sri Lanka) has to be implemented by the exercise of legislative power by Parliament and where found to be necessary by the People at a Referendum to have internal effect and attribute rights and duties to individuals. This is in keeping with the dualist theory which underpins our Constitution (Sinharasa Vs Attorney General – Supreme Court)  

HRC SRI LANKA DEFENDS SCHOOL TEACHERS WEARING THE ABAYA

Image: in March 2018 a group of people protested against teaches wearing Abaya to Sri Shanmuga Hindu Ladies College, Trincomalee.

HRC/TCO/27/18 –HRCSL issues a recommendation that preventing teachers from wearing the Abaya while performing their duties is a violation of Articles 10, 12 (1), 12 (2) and 14 (e).

03/04/2019

In March 2018, four Assistant teachers of Sri Shanmuga Hindu Ladies College, Trincomalee lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) that the Principal and the School Board of Management prohibited them from wearing the Abaya at school. The school justified the prohibition on the basis that historically the school, which was founded by a Hindu, has followed Hindu traditions, and wearing the Abaya was not in line with the customs of the school.


HRCSL in its recommendation states that national schools are bound by the Constitution and cannot violate the absolute right to religious freedom under Article 10. The denial of the right of the complainants to wear their traditional dress as well as the arbitrary nature of the transfers to other schools were done on the basis the religion of the complainants. Hence, the rights to which the complainants are entitled as per Article 12 (1) and 12 (2) of the Constitution have been violated. The Commission further states that although the manifestation of religion, under Article 14 (1) (e), can be restricted in order to recognize and respect the rights and freedoms of others, ensuring another person’s religious freedom does not require barring the wearing of the Abaya at school.

The Commission reiterates the need for respect for diversity and pluralism in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country such as Sri Lanka, and calls upon the Ministry of Education and the Zonal Education Director to conduct awareness raising programmes on diversity and pluralism for school principals, teachers, students and parents.

The Commission also notes with deep concern that the use of social media, such as Facebook, to share information related to the case in the public domain without any regard for the confidentiality of the proceedings and without the permission of the parties concerned or the Commission is a breach of ethical responsibilities. In this case, such acts only served to incite religious and ethnic hatred and intolerance within the community and led to the harassment and intimidation of the complainants and respondents. Since such acts can even lead to inter community violence, the Commission calls upon all citizens to be mindful of the misuse of social media as weapons in campaigns to incite religious and ethnic hatred and violence and use social media responsibly as a tool to promote inter-ethnic and inter-religious understanding and harmony.

HRC TCO 27 18 HRCSL recommendation _English

Geopolitical Scales Of One Belt One Road

Diagram S.0 – Image Credits: The Future is Asian (2019) by Parag Khanna

By Asanga Abeyagoonasekera –APRIL 2, 2019

Asanga Abeygoonasekera

“Let China sleep; when she wakes she will shake the world” – Napoleon Bonaparte

In the year 1271 in the 13th century a young Venetian begins a 24 years trek to emperor Kublai Khan’s court in Cambulac – modern day Beijing and returned  on a different route. He visited the  Indian ocean island of Sri Lanka on his way  home. This historic route traveled was later named “Seidenstrasse” (Silk Road) by a German geographer Ferdinand von Richthofen in 1877.

Further back in “Western” history, during the reign of emperor Marcus Aurelius (161-180 CE) Chinese silk was the most valued commodity in Rome. In a manner of history repeating itself  Robert Kaplan a contemporary writer aptly titled his latest book  “The return of the Marco Polo’s world”. Argument and speculation surrounding a revival of this world rang true with an MOU between Italy and China connected Rome to Beijing and her network at the highest levels. Italy is  the first G7 country to endorse China’s Silk Road the One Belt One Road(OBOR). The Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte opened the doors for the dragon to re-enter Europe, just as President Rajapaksa pledged its support for the grand strategic Chinese project to enter Sri Lanka five years ago.

Few months ago, I was visiting NATO headquarters in Brussels with some scholars from Asia, at the meeting a question was raised, will NATO ever bring China and South China Sea to its agenda? The answer was a clear no. It is far from its global agenda. Today, the Trump administration has tabled the Chinese agenda into NATO, especially on Chinese infrastructure projects and telecommunications expansions in Europe. This is with particular reference to Chinese telecom giant Huawei’s investment in Europe’s 5G infrastructure network. It is seen by some as a Trojan horse for Beijing’s digital espionage. Jens Stoltenberg the NATO Secretary-General made a comment at a speech stating that China’s rise also presents a challenge with its investment in Europe’s critical infrastructure, including its fifth generation, or 5G, wireless communications networks.

With the new development of Huawei seen as a national security threat in the United States, the United States has threatened to curb intelligence cooperation with allies that allowed Huawei to build up new mobile internet infrastructure. More than 70% of Sri Lanka’s mobile network is on Chinese infrastructure belonging to Huawei and ZTE. Itis important to see how Sri Lanka will manage its US relationship when awarding the next tender to Huawei.  The Chinese foothold is seen very clearly with its infrastructure projects in Sri Lanka and many other South Asian countries.

Looking at Italy’s entry into OBOR and China’s surrounding commercial influences at important ports, including Rotterdam, Antwerp, Hamburg, and Piraeus, China has already placed its strategic foot print in the European continent. It could influence future policy decisions in favor of ChinaThis clearly weakens a US liberal hegemonic grip in Europe.The Trump administration will use NATO to curb  rising Chinese influence in Europe . This will be in addition to an existing  incomplete list of duties, including to deter Russia and wars in Middle east and Afghanistan.

Marco Polo is described  by President Xi during his visit to Italy as  the “first bridge” between Italy and China.The modern version is  more sophisticated with network of ports, railways, tunnels and other infrastructure spanning 60 countries over land and sea. In a lecture held at the Venetian University Ca’Foscari in 2016, I highlighted the significance of the OBOR and its influence to Sri Lanka including the Hambathota Port and how the $1trillion OBOR will influence the geopolitics of Eurasia. Today, Professor Renzo Cavalieri, at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice says “Everyone is somehow involved in the project but no other G7 country has signed an MoU of this kind…what Italy has done, in quite a disordered way, is take a step ahead to create something which, so far, is not that strong in content but is quite important symbolically”.

Italy ignored Brussels, despite EU commission’s paper issued last week branding China as a “systemic rival”, threatening to regulate Chinese investment in Europe and highlighting the security risk over Huawei 5G network. Italy did not consult Brussels nor Washington when signing the MOU, the geopolitical calculation has been made to move ahead with China just like 12 other EU nations who had signed MOUs on OBOR before Italy. In the future it is clear many other countries in Europe will follow Italy’s position owing  to China’s expanding economic power and failure of Brussels to adopt a common policy on China that could benefit all EU nations. While some nations like France and Germany are benefiting from Chinese trade, Italy and southern European nations feel left out. This imbalance of trade with China will open bilateral prospects for the southern nations and former soviet bloc nations in central Asia.

I witnessed the same during a visit to Kazakstan, Astana where the Central Asian country with its hard steppe zone of black rich soil is a testimony to Beijing’s attempt to dominate its central Asian minority areas. Kaplan describes this situation as “smothering them (central Asian states) with development, even as the Chinese build urban nodes for a postmodern Silk Road of long-distance highways, railways, and energy pipelines linking China with the former Soviet republics nearby”.

With its connected geography Europe and Asia are the two most significant regions in global trade. According to Parag Khanna (Diagram S.0) they account for   $1.6 trillion more than the transatlantic at $1.3 trillion and US-Asia at $1.4 trillion. The US power balance in Eurasia is at decline.  Stephen Walt argues that this is due to liberal hegemony spelled out after the Cold War with a misleading foreign policy followed by one leader after another from Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump. United States interference, to entanglement on regime changes in the Middle East has not economically benefited them. Protecting and restoring democracy agenda to win the local communities has failed due to its double standards.

Read More

Women in the context of Post-war Sri Lanka’s Mine Action

4 April 2019

April 4th marks the International Day for Mine Awareness and Assistance in Mine Action. On this occasion the Sri Lanka Campaign to Ban Landmines (SLCBL) congratulates Sri Lanka on its continued dedication towards Mine Action. 

As a country affected by Anti-personnel Mines (AP Mines) Sri Lanka stands by its pledge to achieve ‘mine-free’ status by 2020, coinciding with the National Deadline and ahead of the Global Deadline for a mine free world, 2025. However, this does not mean that Sri Lanka’s engagement with the AP Mine issue ends there. This article looks at the impact that the AP Mine issue in Sri Lanka has on women and the roles they play in Mine Action, in the run-up to the National Deadline of 2020 and afterwards. 

Anti-personnel Landmines (AP Mines) were used in Sri Lanka during the 30-year armed conflict by both the State Armed Forces and the Liberation Tamil Tigers of Eelam (LTTE) as well as by the Indian Peace Keeping Forces (IPKF) during their involvement. Considered to be extensively contaminated by AP Mines at the conclusion of the war in 2009, Sri Lanka has now been internationally hailed as a success story in Mine Action. According to the National Mine Action Centre (NMAC) the remaining mine contaminated area in Sri Lanka is just over 25 Km2 as at December 2018. 

---

• Anti-personnel Landmines (AP Mines) were used in Sri Lanka during the 30-year armed conflict
• Sri Lanka has now been internationally hailed as a success story in Mine Action

---

A Prohibited Weapon

Being an indiscriminate weapon which causes superfluous harm and unnecessary suffering to not only combatants but civilians- regardless of whether they are child, man or woman- and animals, AP Mines are now a prohibited weapon by virtue of the ‘Anti-personnel Mine Ban Convention’ (APMBC) of 1997. Women have played a pioneer role in bringing about a complete ban on AP Mines. It is exemplified by the fact that the ‘International Campaign to Ban Landmines’ and its Co-ordinator Jody Williams were jointly awarded the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for their tenacity in making the APMBC a reality. 

Having consistently opposed AP Mines in policy, in December 2017 Sri Lanka became the 163rd State Party to the APMBC. Accordingly, Sri Lanka now engages in Mine Action which is characterized by the Five Pillars of the APMBC, namely Demining, Mine Risk Education, Victim Assistance, Stockpile Destruction, and Advocacy. Sri Lanka also acceded to the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) in 2018, and ratified the Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in 2016. 

Role of Women in Mine Action

The local and international demining organizations carrying out demining in Sri Lanka; namely the HALO Trust, MAG, DASH and SHARP, employ female deminers in their operations in various roles such as Deminers, Managers and Section Leaders, thus maintaining equal opportunities including equal pay. All of these women are from conflict-affected areas. Many of them are Female Heads of Households (FHH) and sometimes the sole breadwinners of their families. They take on the occupational hazards involved in demining alongside their male counterparts proving that they are equally competent. 

Once the demining operations draw to a close these women deminers would become unemployed, thereby losing the economic stability that they and their families had so far. In recognition of their service to the country in making the land safe again it is a duty incumbent on the State to ensure that they have alternative employment opportunities. For instance, the government could enter partnerships with other mine affected countries or international organizations in need of trained demining staff so that these women can make use of their training.

Being an indiscriminate weapon which causes superfluous harm and unnecessary suffering to not only combatants but civilians- regardless of whether they are child, man or woman- and animals

Mine Risk Education (MRE) 

or activities that educate the public about safe practices to adhere to avoid the dangers of mines and Explosive Remnants of War (ERW) has resulted in a drastic drop in accidents caused by war-related explosives in the war affected provinces. Females, including schoolgirls working as volunteers with the MRE partner organizations have played a significant role in reaching out to families and acting as peer group influencers. 

In the area of Victim Assistance, Sri Lanka still needs to improve survivor inclusion, accessibility to services and service effectiveness. Regardless of these obstacles women and girls who have met with landmine accidents as well as those secondarily victimized by a family member becoming victim to a landmine play inspiring roles in coming to terms with their disabilities and facing day-to-day challenges. Some are emerging as leaders taking their stories to the world. Shanthi Sriskandarasa is a mine victim who is now representing her local constituency as a Member of Parliament. It is worthy to note that the Jaffna Jaipur Centre for Rehabilitation (JJCDR) which provides a yeoman service to mine victims and other persons in need of prosthetic limbs and rehabilitation assistance, is efficiently headed by Chairperson Dr. Ms. J. Ganeshamoorthy. 

In the fields of advocacy and universalization the SLCBL has been able to foster female participation.

The young women who are SLCBL’s Campaign Volunteers have been able to spread awareness about mine action both locally and globally. This writer as SLCBL’s Youth Coordinator delivered the youth statement at the plenary meeting of the 17th Meeting of State Parties of the APMBC held in Austria in 2017 urging government representatives and other delegates to meet their Mine Action obligations. 

Women in Mine Action in Sri Lanka have contributed immensely towards achieving the country’s obligations in becoming free of the scourge of AP Mines. May this article be a tribute to their dedication, hard work and sacrifices and may it bring them the recognition that they so richly deserve.  

‘Colombata kiri, apita kekiri’

Sunday, March 31, 2019

As Sri Lanka suffers from extraordinary heat, the Government’s decision to impose nation-wide power cuts excepting Colombo city and other ‘privileged’ locations where parliamentarians reside, speaks not only to its witless actions in respect of a major crisis but also imputes a ‘selectiveness’ that has deadly import in an election year.

A Government that cannot ‘govern?

Tellingly, a disgruntled householder in Chilaw exclaimed this week when asked for her reactions by a television, ‘power and water are two basic things that a government is supposed to supply to its people. If it cannot do even that, then what use is it?’   Hardships due to decreased water levels in the reservoirs and the absence of rain are natural and indeed annual occurrences that we ought to be prepared for during these months. But instead of a national sustainable energy policy comprising renewable power solutions as an important part thereof, the public has to suffer major corruption in state bodies responsible for energy generation that goes unchecked and bickering public servants who are as bad as politicians in foisting the blame on each other.

Meanwhile imbecilic political statements offering short term solutions are rife. This week, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe asserted that Temple Trees would be powered by generators, which example ought to be followed by others.  So is the private supply of power the answer to a brazen political failure to initiate additional power production facilities or solar powered alternatives during the past few years and to tackle the well known ‘power mafia’ in the country? The lack of transparency and accountability on the part of officials in the energy sector is well established.

Neither is the public interested in politicians cackling over each other’s failures as former President Mahinda Rajapaksa did a few days ago when he said (wrongly) that the country did not have to undergo electricity crises during his time. ‘In his time’, as we may recall, persistent allegations of gargantuan corruption as well as environmental protests dogged the construction of the Norochcholai Power Plant which was also subjected to constant breakdowns after its commencement in 2011, one very recently. As in the case of the Rajapaksa-initiated Uma Oya project with Iran which resulted criminally in the drying up of water sources in Bandarawela, sub-standard material had been used in the construction of Norochcholai with the full knowledge of former Ministers fattened by massive ‘commissions’, as alleged at the time but with those responsible not being hauled to court.

Questions that have larger import in an election year

On top of the political swindling of the public coffers which is bad enough, there is additional inequity this time around.  Colombo and other ‘privileged’ areas are exempted from power cuts imposed on other locations, supposedly on the basis of optimal self-generation. This begs the question as to how many state or private/household units in the capital are indeed powered by electricity for their own use, either through generators or by a third-party under a power-supply contract? On the other hand, if the logic is that Colombo should not suffer power cuts due to impact on city-based businesses and industry, reduced power cuts could be imposed. But why should the capital be exempted from otherwise nation-wide power cuts altogether?

Ironically, the ‘less than equals’ who are financially hit by the power cuts pay taxes and contribute to the public coffers far more diligently than rascally ‘high earners’ in Colombo most culpable in evading taxes or parliamentarians who squander public funds but do not attend parliamentary sessions for the budget vote. So in the name of all that is holy, why are selected suburbs in which Ministers and politicians live, also exempted? These questions have a larger import, impacting negatively on the Government in an election year.

There is a terse saying among rural folk to the effect that it is always, ‘Colombata kiri, apita kekiri,’  which loosely translates to declaring that state policies invariably privilege Colombo, giving the city ‘milk’ while others get the sour ‘kekiri’ (snake cucumber). What is happening now is precisely that, shamelessly and without pretense. This taps into and reinforces the image of the governing United National Party (UNP) as ‘elitist’, particularly under its present leadership which is demonized, fairly or unfairly by that label. This is deadly imagery which the Government, the Prime Minister and a largely incompetent Cabinet should take heed of.

Imbecilic utterances by Ministers

These inequities cannot be explained away by graceful apologies issued by Minister of  Power and Energy, Ravi Karunanayake or indeed, by his promising that power cuts will not be imposed during the New Year, next month. These are sops thrown to the populace, scornfully recognised as such. And the Minister may be well advised not to add insult to palpable injury by nonchalantly asking angry citizens to keep two lights switched off in their houses to preserve electricity.

This statement is somewhat akin to the Rajapaksa-era Minister of Education Bandula Gunawardena saying that a family of three could have three square meals and two cups of tea a day for Rs.2500 a month. This asinine assertion was mocked for years thereafter. Similarly, the Power and Energy Minister’s injunction to householders will be added to the peoples’ encyclopedia of stupid political sayings, to be jeered at in perpetuity.

But deadly bumbling of ‘yahapalanaya’ politicians have an additional edge by buttressing the perception that this is a Government which has no thought for the common citizen. While the UNP may justifiably crow about winning the constitutional battle last year, a formidable electoral battle lies ahead. The gains of defeating that unconstitutional capture of power by the Rajapaksas are all but frittered away now, with the opposition skillfully capitalising on popular fury, intensified by the former President’s brother symbolising the ‘strong man’ solution to ‘yahapalanaya’ ills. These are not matters to be complacent about.

Continuing of brainless bumbling

Meanwhile, the Government’s brainless bumbling continues with the expenditure heads of two Ministries (Megapolis and Home Affairs) being defeated in Parliament as Government parliamentarians were not present in the House when the vote was called. Prime Minister Wickremesinghe airily brushed off this astonishing lapse by saying that the expenditure heads will be presented again and that ‘the Government will not collapse.’

On the contrary, that ‘collapse’ is inevitable if not right now, then in the looming polls if ‘yahapalanaya’ absurdities continue.  The larger question is about the accountability of the government given the huge amount of public funds expended on maintaining the House. Presence of the government members on the floor of the House when the quorum bells are rung during the budget debate is the minimum. The consequent resignation of the assistant chief government whip is a footnote. Far sterner measures need to be evidenced in regard to absent and errant parliamentarians. But doubtless, that will not happen.

As each Government succeeds the other, with one set of corrupt rascals safeguarding their equally corrupt predecessors, ‘kekiri-eating’ citizens must suffer. This seems to be the unfortunate story of a ‘Dhammadeepa’ which has become anything but the ‘isle of the blessed.’

Sri Lanka: Don’t End Death Penalty Moratorium

President’s Support for Murderous Philippine ‘Drug War’ Ignores Abuses, Law

Visiting Sri Lanka President Maithripala Sirisena, left, and Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte shake hands following the welcoming ceremony Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2019, at the Presidential Palace grounds in Manila, Philippines. 

 © 2019 AP Photo/Bullit Marquez

April 1, 2019 6:00PM EDT

(New York) – The Sri Lankan government should drop plans to resume executions, which would end an unofficial 43-year moratorium in the country, Human Rights Watch said today. On March 31, 2019, President Maithripala Sirisena said that a date had been set to resume carrying out the death penaltyin drug trafficking cases.

Sirisena renewed calls for the death penalty following a visit to the Philippines in January, during which he called President Rodrigo Duterte’s “war on drugs” an “example to the world.” In March, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, Michelle Bachelet, reported to the UN Human Rights Council that up to 27,000 people have been killed in the Philippines’ anti-drug campaign. The UN, nongovernmental organizations including Human Rights Watch, and the media have linked the killings of alleged drug dealers and users to the police and police-backed vigilantes.

“There is no reason to bring the death penalty back to Sri Lanka after a four-decade moratorium,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “President Sirisena’s decision to restore the death penalty because he was inspired by the Philippine’s murderous ‘drug war’ may be the worst possible justification and would violate international law.”

The death penalty has not been carried out in Sri Lanka since 1976. Currently, 1,299 prisoners – 1,215 men and 84 women – are on Sri Lanka’s death row after having been convicted for capital offenses, including 48 for drug crimes. In February, the government began advertising in local newspapers for a hangman, seeking male candidates between ages 18 and 45 with “excellent moral character” and “a very good mind and mental strength.”

The alleged deterrent effect of the death penalty has been repeatedly debunked, Human Rights Watch said. In 2015, the UN assistant secretary-general for human rights, Ivan Šimonović, stated that there was “no evidence that the death penalty deters any crime.” Even with respect to murder, an Oxford University analysis concluded that capital punishment does not deter“murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment.”

The UN has also opposed the use of the death penalty for drug-related crimes. In a March 2010 report, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime called for an end to the death penalty and specifically urged member countries to prohibit the use of the death penalty for drug-related offenses, and called on countries to take an overall “human rights-based approach to drug and crime control.” In its 2014 annual report, the International Narcotics Control Board, the agency charged with monitoring compliance with UN drug control conventions, encouraged countries to abolish the death penalty for drug offenses.

Imposing the death penalty for drug offenses would violate Sri Lanka’s international human rights obligations, Human Rights Watch said. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Sri Lanka is party, states in article 6 on the right to life that the death penalty “may be imposed only for the most serious crimes.” The UN Human Rights Committee, which monitors state compliance with the covenant, said in a 2018 general comment that “most serious crimes” applies “only to crimes of extreme gravity, involving intentional killing. Crimes not resulting directly and intentionally in death, such as … drug … offences, although serious in nature, can never serve as the basis, within the framework of article 6, for the imposition of the death penalty.”

Sri Lanka was one of the first countries in South Asia to cease carrying out the death penalty. In December 2018, Sri Lanka joined 120 countries at the UN General Assembly that voted in favor of a resolution on the “Moratorium on the use of the death penalty.” Only 35 countries voted against the resolution. Human Rights Watch opposes the death penalty in all circumstances because it is inherently cruel and irreversible.

“The Sri Lankan government should publicly recommit to its moratorium on the use of the death penalty with a view to permanently abolishing the practice,” Ganguly said. “Executions, whether imposed by a judge or carried out unlawfully by the police, are not the way to address drug offenses.”

Women In The Context Of Post-War Sri Lanka’s Mine Action

By Nillasi Liyanage –APRIL 4, 2019

April 4th marks the International Day for Mine Awareness and Assistance in Mine Action. On this occasion the Sri Lanka Campaign to Ban Landmines (SLCBL) congratulates Sri Lanka on its continued dedication towards Mine Action.

As a country affected by Anti-personnel Mines (AP Mines) Sri Lanka stands by its pledge to achieve ‘mine-free’ status by 2020, coinciding with the National Deadline and ahead of the Global Deadline for a mine free world, 2025. However, this does not mean that Sri Lanka’s engagement with the AP Mine issue ends there. This article looks at the impact that the AP Mine issue in Sri Lanka has on women and the roles they play in Mine Action, in the run-up to the National Deadline of 2020 and afterwards.

Anti-personnel Landmines (AP Mines) were used in Sri Lanka during the 30-year armed conflict by both the State Armed Forces and the Liberation Tamil Tigers Eelam (LTTE) as well as by the Indian Peace Keeping Forces (IPKF) during their involvement. Considered to be extensively contaminated by AP Mines at the conclusion of the war in 2009, Sri Lanka has now been internationally hailed as a success story in Mine Action. According to the National Mine Action Centre (NMAC) the remaining mine contaminated area in Sri Lanka is just over 25Km2 as at December 2018.

A Prohibited Weapon

Being an indiscriminate weapon which causes superfluous harm and unnecessary suffering to not only combatants but civilians- regardless of whether they are child, man or woman- and animals, AP Mines are now a prohibited weapon by virtue of the ‘Anti-personnel Mine Ban Convention’ (APMBC) of 1997. Women have played a pioneer role in bringing about a complete ban on AP Mines. It is exemplified by the fact that the ‘International Campaign to Ban Landmines’ and its Co-ordinator Jody Williams were jointly awarded the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for their tenacity in making the APMBC a reality.

Having consistently opposed AP Mines in policy, in December 2017 Sri Lanka became the 163rd State Party to the APMBC. Accordingly, Sri Lanka now engages in Mine Action which is characterized by the Five Pillars of the APMBC, namely Demining, Mine Risk Education, Victim Assistance, Stockpile Destruction, and Advocacy. Sri Lanka also acceded to the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) in 2018, and ratified the Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in 2016.

Role of Women in Mine Action

The local and international demining organizations carrying out demining in Sri Lanka; namely the HALO Trust, MAG, DASH and SHARP, employ female deminers in their operations in various roles such as deminers, Managers and Section Leaders, thus maintaining equal opportunities including equal pay. All of these women are from conflict-affected areas. Many of them are Female Heads of Households (FHH) and sometimes the sole breadwinners of their families. They take on the occupational hazards involved in demining alongside their male counterparts proving that they are equally competent.

Once the demining operations draw to a close these women deminers would become unemployed, thereby losing the economic stability that they and their families had so far. In recognition of their service to the country in making the land safe again it is a duty incumbent on the State to ensure that they have alternative employment opportunities. For instance, the government could enter partnerships with other mine affected countries or international organizations in need of trained demining staff so that these women can make use of their training.

Read More

Bitter homecoming for Muslims in Mannar

3 April 2019

On March 15, Muslims, grouping in their dozens, protested in front of the Sri Lanka Navy Camp in Silavathurai- home to the highest number of Muslims in Northern Province-demanding the Navy to move out of their residential area. Their mission behind this long-standing protest is to reclaim the 36 acre land; the home for many generations of Muslims and occupied by the Sri Lanka Navy.

Many Tamils and Muslims in Mannar fled the homeland at the height of the war, with the hope of returning if a conducive environment- free of violence and warfare- would be created for peaceful coexistence. Around 220 families from Silavathurai, Musali division, Mannar District, were also forced to flee the area during the conflict.

When they returned to their lands in 2009, the number of families had risen to 750. As they returned to Silavathurai, eagerly hoping to rebuild their lives, they witnessed a Navy camp that takes up the whole space- spanning 36 acres- where they used to live. Their relentless struggle included protests, petitions and discussions, yet, the lands are still occupied by Government forces, despite pledges to return them to the rightful owners.

---

• This land issue is not limited to  Silavathurai, but is a common complaint coming  from all over Northern and Eastern provinces
• Navy cited security concerns as reason for their reluctance to move out of the area
• HRW claimed many acres of land  had been converted  for commercial endeavours too

---

Alternative lands and housing

Of the 750 families who returned in 2009, only 120 families have legitimate deeds for their lands. Others claim that they have lost the documents while fleeing to escape from the intense fighting.

Around 350 families have been provided with lands about one kilometer away from their original lands while 275 families of the 350 have received financial support from the state and Indian funded projects to build houses. Around 75 families are temporarily resettled in coconut thatch roofed houses. Around 400 families have neither land nor temporary resettlement. However, all 750 families demand their original lands which are currently occupied by the Sri Lanka Navy.

“We will continue with our fight even though we have received alternate lands. We want them to return our original lands,” Chairman of Land Rescue Front of Silavathurai M.S. Taj Mohomed told the Daily Mirror.  “We had all facilities before, but now we have nothing,” he complained.

Pearl fishing had been an active trade in the areas, connecting the region to the outside world
Pix by Piyumi Fonseka

Lost livelihoods

Silavathurai is a little village by the coast, 40 km southwest of Mannar in the Musali division. Aquamarine waters in Silavathurai are so clear that the fish swimming within are visible to the naked eye. The beauty of Mannar beaches is almost unthinkable and it is no match compared to what’s on offer in Colombo or Down South beaches. Pearl fishing had been an active trade in the areas, connecting the region to the outside world. Later on, Muslims and Tamils in the area gradually turned to paddy cultivation and farming. After their return to the homeland, they found it impossible to engage in their previous livelihoods.

“Our people are facing many problems in terms of employment. Fishing is no longer possible because the Navy is everywhere and we feel restricted. At the time we had to leave, we had farms in houses too. Now we are left with no option other than engaging in manual labour to provide three meals for our children,” Taj Mohomed said.

The Northern and Eastern provinces have reported the highest levels of unemployment in the country, with unemployment rates at 7.7 percent and 6 percent respectively. Unemployment figures among women in North (15.5%) and East (13%) are over twice the national female unemployment rate (6.5 %).

Foreign Minister Tilak Marapana told the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) at its recently held 40th session that the remaining lands, which are a necessity in the context of national security, would continue to be held by the security forces

Lacking freedom of movement

Fathima Rizvana, a single mother of two children from Silavathurai, claimed that she doesn’t feel there is freedom of movement because of the presence of the Navy and the Navy camp in the center of their village.

“When our children go to school, when we go to the mosque for prayers, to the burial site for a funeral, or even when we just walk to the nearest grocery, a sight of a Navy camp or security officers is unavoidable,” Rizvana said.

According to her, the area of the land possess historical importance and consists of residential lands, houses, a mosque, a Hindu Kovil, shops and several Government offices.

Refuting claims that security officers harass them in any manner, Rizvana said the residents of the area don’t feel there is freedom of movement when compared to the environment which existed before the war. “When we are at home, we should feel it. If we feel we are being monitored by someone and when we see armed men in uniform every single day, we don’t feel there is liberty,” she said.

Threats and intimidation

Residents of Silavathurai who have been protesting for the release of their lands from Navy occupation also complain of threats and intimidation from the armed forces. A group of protesters filed a complaint against the Sri Lanka Navy at the Human Rights Commission (HRCSL) recently, stating that they were being intimidated and photographed by Navy personnel. The protesters appealed for protection from HRCSL.

Navy not ready to shift the camp 

Foreign Minister Tilak Marapana told the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) at its recently held 40th session that the remaining lands, which are a necessity in the context of national security, would continue to be held by the security forces, with compensation being paid for privately-owned lands.

To know what the stance of the Navy is, the Daily Mirror spoke to the Navy Media Spokesman Lieutenant Commander Isuru Suriyabandara. He said that people in Silavathurai won’t achieve much by protesting. He cited both security concerns and strategic importance as reasons for their reluctance to move out of the area.

He said the Silavathurai area is an important strategic location to target illegal drug smugglers and Indian fishermen who illegally enter the Sri Lankan waters. “We have apprehended scores of grams of Kerala Ganja from Silavathurai seas. Even if they ask us to move out of the Navy camp, we cannot do so due to the needs of national security. We have a national responsibility to safeguard the area and the people. If we move out, who will take the responsibility?” asked Lieutenant Commander Isuru Suriyabandara.

“The Navy cannot decide on its own about shifting a camp. Currently, we have no plan to move out. Even if it happens someday, it would take a lot of time. Much research and studies have to be done before decisions like these are taken,” he added.

However, the distance between the Northwestern Command Headquarters and Naval Institute (SLNS Barana) in Mullikulam and the Silavathurai Navy Camp is just 3.7 km.

National interest or commercial purpose?

Human Rights Watch (HRW) report “Why Can’t We Go Home?” Military Occupation of Land in Sri Lanka released on October 9, 2018, stated that despite claims by the Sri Lankan military that they are holding on to land in the war-torn north and east for national security, the real interest is commercial gain.

The 80-page report said “the use of the land for tourism or agriculture points to the real interest rooted in commercial gain. In at least four sites included in this report, the land occupied by the military under the pretext of national security is being utilised for commercial purposes.” HRW claimed that many acres of land previously owned by villagers had been converted by the military for commercial endeavours.

“In the north and east, the military runs farms, has established roadside eateries and operates hotels for tourists, some of the latter coming up on contested lands. The continuation of these practices raises concerns about military profit-making under the guise of national security at the expense of the rights of members belonging to affected communities,” the report further said.

The Daily Mirror carried an article in 2017 regarding the land issue in Panama, Ampara following a visit by the author and we witnessed tourist cabanas and lagoons built by the military forces in residential and cultivation lands belonging to the people of Ulpassa, Egodayaya, and Horakanda; areas they used to live in before the war.

When the Daily Mirror asked the Navy about the number of lands which are used for commercial purposes by the Navy, we received a negative response. The Navy said it is almost impossible to issue such information and specifically asked what we could do with such information.

Details regarding occupied lands not divulged

As the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights noted in his report on the implementation of UN Human Rights Council Resolution 30/1 and 30/4 in January 2018, “The full extent of land under military occupation claimed by civilians remains in question.”

When the Daily Mirror asked for the information from Sri Lanka Navy about the number of acres of land still occupied by the Navy, they refused to provide the information citing national concerns. Even the Department of Provincial Land Commissioner of Northern Provincial Council failed to provide the information this newspaper required.

Bathiudeen thinks Navy’s conduct is unfair

Meanwhile, we spoke to the Industry & Commerce, Resettlement of Protracted Displaced Persons, Co-operative Development and Vocational Training & Skills Development Minister Rishad Bathiudeen who has been heavily criticised over the alleged resettlement of Muslims in lands belonging to the Wilpattu Forest Reserve. The minister said that refusing to return the main land of the only Muslim town in Northern Province is unfair.

“Silavathurai is akin to the capital of Muslim community in North. This land, where the Navy has built the camp, is in the centre of the town. Holding this land with hatred is unacceptable,” he said.
Bathiudeen said: “The Navy Camp in Silavathurai was built after the conclusion of the war in 2009. Some of the residents have legitimate deeds for their lands and another set of people have permits for having lived in the lands for generations.”



White flags are hoisted in released lands while pink or red flags came up in unreleased lands
He stressed that justice has to be meted out to the people who had been patiently waiting for the return of their lands despite having the capacity to take this issue to Geneva.

Responding to the Navy’s stance about security concerns and ongoing smuggling activities in Silavathurai, Minister Bathiudeen said the Navy has the Mullikulam Navy Base which is just 3 km away from this problematic land to carry out their security operations.

Sri Lanka after the conflict is facing challenges in returning property to those forced out of their lands, caused by a loss of records, overlapping claims and a lack of necessary institutional frameworks. This land issue is not limited to  Silavathurai, but is a common complaint coming from all over Northern and Eastern provinces. Dozens of families in Mullikulam, a small village in the Musali division on the Marichukatty-Puttalam road at northern edge of the Wilpattu jungles, are still fighting to get their original lands back from the military forces. The authorities should open their eyes at the plight of scores of Catholic families who lived in Mullikulam St. Mary’s Church area.

They are now not given permission to return to their houses. The status of return of their lands in Mullikulam too remains uncertain, due to the Navy having established their Northwestern Command Headquarters and Naval Institute (SLNS Barana) at Mullikulam.

When we saw the golden sand and the wonderful beaches in Mannar, the word came to our minds was ‘paradise’ but in reality the place had been ignored and abandoned. The people’s lives of Silavathurai and Mullikulam too can be improved. First and foremost, the people’s lands should be given back and the state should support them regardless of their race or religion to uplift their lives.

The development in the lives of people ultimately positively impacts the state and country too.