As a journalist, there is almost no end to the diversity of people I meet on a day-to-day basis. I was covering an event this morning with a colleague and was accosted by a lady who asked to speak to me in private to which I agreed, thinking that maybe I could ask her for an interview after the event. She introduced herself as a counselor who worked with children and then proceeded to ask me a series of invasive questions - first, what my age was and then, if I was married.

I answered her truthfully and politely wondering where this would lead when she hit me with it: “Darling”, she said sweetly, patting my arm, “I counsel young children on their attire. Now, there are young boys and priests here and when they see you dressed like this, you give them temptation. And that is not good for you”. I was so appalled that, at the time, I couldn’t do anything but nod and take her card as she went on to offer me her counseling services.

I walked numbly out of the room, hardly believing what she had told me. I will not even mention what I was wearing because I think that is quite beside the point. As for the temptation part, well, if I’m a woman and attractive, I will not apologize for it.

I wanted to confront her as soon as I had my thoughts in order but she had left the place, and left me seething. I came back to office and wrote her the following letter.

###

Dear Ms.,

I am the journalist you met this morning, to whom you offered your card and services as a counselor based on my attire. I was not only highly insulted by what you said to me today but also, quite simply, appalled. Out of respect for the place we were in and the event about to begin, I only smiled and nodded but now I feel if I do not reply you, I would be letting down all the women that I interact with on a daily basis; all strong, independent women I am proud to know. Women who would not compromise their own identity for anything.

I am proud to count myself amongst these women and would not change for any reason, much less the ones you gave me today. Which, by the way, insulted not only me but also my parents, my upbringing and my place of work. My parents are well known and respected people and I have had the choicest upbringing and attended the best schools and universities – if my attire does not offend my parents or the professionals with whom I work (my superior is one of the strongest women I know and one of the most well respected female journalists in the country, then that is all I need. I certainly will not change what I wear so that “young boys and priests” will not get tempted when they see me.

I am a woman, proud of my body and the way I look. If these young boys and priests look and me and feel “tempted” then I think you should be giving your business card to them and not me. It is precisely your brand of judgement that, in its most extreme manifestation, renders the rapist innocent and instead blames the victim for bringing unwanted attention to herself. In my opinion this is not the way to address this problem. Men should be able to respect a woman and treat them accordingly no matter what their attire. I think your services would be of much better use if you counsel chauvinist men instead of encouraging impressionable young women to cover up for fear of men looking at them.

No woman should have to stifle herself and her identity to avoid tempting men. The idea is, quite frankly, ridiculously outdated and anti-feminist. And as a born and bred feminist, it stands against everything I believe in.

Incidentally, I met and interviewed priests and nuns at the event and got none of your patronizing judgement from them – merely, friendliness and a healthy respect for me in my professional capacity as a journalist.

I would not even have accepted your card if it had not been that I wanted to make sure I had a way of contacting you to tell you exactly how I feel. And it is this: that you are doing much more harm than good talking to young women the way you do – making women cover up does not solve the problem. Encouraging young men to treat women with respect and without judgement is a much more valuable service – one which I hope you will turn your efforts to in the near future.

I do not mean to be insulting – I merely wish to share my point of view as you so freely gave me yours without any thought to whether you might offend me or not. If I am being judgemental it is because you invited it upon yourself by being judgmental of me.

I am an adult and, above all, a woman. A proud and independent woman. I think you should endeavour to find some pride in your own femininity instead of trying to stifle it in others.

Similar Posts:

• Hijab whereforth dost thou commeth?
• Like Slaves In Jaffna
• The origins of the Media Accreditation Card
• We are nobody’s children…
• A Donkey doing a Dog’s work: The Grade 1 entrance fiasco and the Chief Justice

Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has called on people displaced by fighting against the Taliban in the north-west of the country to go home.

He said that the first phase of a four-part programme to return them would begin on 13 July.

It is the first time the PM has made such a call since the army offensive against the Taliban began in April.

The army, meanwhile, says that its operation in Malakand has entered its final phase.

Mr Gilani said that militants had already been "cleared" from Swat, Buner and part of Upper Dir.

Several hundred families from those areas have already begun to return to their homes.

Developed and developing nations have agreed that global temperatures should not rise more than 2C above 1900 levels, a G8 summit declaration says.

That is the level above which, the UN says, the Earth's climate system would become dangerously unstable.

But the industrialised G8 nations have so far failed to persuade developing countries to accept targets for reducing emissions by 50% by 2050.

On Wednesday the G8 agreed to 80% cuts by the same date.

Earlier UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said the G8 had not done enough and should also set 2020 targets.

He said that while the G8 agreement reached on Wednesday was welcome its leaders also needed to establish a strong and ambitious mid-term target for emissions cuts.

By Colin Irwin, Institute of Irish Studies, University of Liverpool, www.peacepolls.org. Download PDF of this article here.

Introduction

With the end of the ground campaign, the death of the Tamil Tiger leadership and the unification of the island of Sri Lanka under one authority, the Sinhala majority can truly say their war has been won. But now the people of Sri Lanka are faced with the daunting task of rebuilding their country, making up for all the lost years and taking their rightful place as a prosperous, vibrant island nation in a region of the world where economic success can only be held back by instability or despotism. Sri Lanka now has to win the peace. To this end the President of Sri Lanka established the All Party Representative Committee (APRC) to draft a set of constitutional reforms that would enhance the democratic rights and freedoms of all it’s citizens so as to ensure long-term stability and growth. But if this exercise in nation building is to be a success these proposals must be acceptable to a significant majority in both the Sinhala and Tamil communities. Ideally such proposals should enjoy what is sometimes referred to as a ‘Southern Consensus’ amongst the Sinhala. While, at the same time, addressing the needs and past grievances of the Tamils living in the East and North, so that they might never again consider violence as a justified course of action. Critically then do the APRC proposals enjoy the support of the Sinhala majority and will the Tamil minority accept them as a settlement of their political claims?

To answer these two questions a summary of the major elements of the APRC proposals was drafted as they existed in February of this year and then tested against public opinion in March. This summary is listed below as a series of 14 ‘show cards’. Those being interviewed were asked what they thought of each item on a given card. Was it ‘essential’, ‘desirable’, ‘acceptable’, ‘tolerable’ or ‘unacceptable’? Then they were asked what they thought of the ‘package’ as a whole, if they would support such a ‘package’ and under what circumstances and if they wanted the government to take such reforms forward.

The APRC proposals in summary form, as they existed in February 2009

1. The Structure of the State – Powers will be divided between the centre and the provinces under a unitary state.

2. The Powers of the Centre and Provinces – These powers will be clearly defined in two lists.

3. The Parliament - Will consist of two houses. The House of Representatives directly elected by the people and the Senate elected by the Provincial Legislators with each Province having the same number of Senators.

4. Amending the Constitution – Amendments affecting the powers of the Provinces can only be made if a majority of Senators from each of the Provinces votes in favour together with not less than two thirds of a joint session of both houses. Amending certain specific articles will also require approval by the people at a referendum.

5. The Powers of the President – The Executive Presidency will cease to exist at the end of the incumbent’s term and be replaced by the Westminster system with a Prime Minister enjoying majority support in the House of Representatives.

6. The Powers of Local Authorities – The Local Authorities will have powers to make by-laws in respect of subjects listed separately in the Constitution.

7. Language Rights – The Tamil and Singhala languages will have parity of status as national and official languages and as languages of the courts. English can also be used for official purposes where it is expedient to do so. Singhala and Tamil shall be the medium of instruction at the school level as well as English if facilities are available. Singhala, Tamil and English shall be used at institutes of higher education.

8. Religious Rights – Buddhism shall have ‘pride of place’ with religious freedom for all citizens being guaranteed.

9. Fundamental Rights – Individual and Group Rights will be recognized including the equality of all citizens and the protection of all persons before the law.

10. Electoral System – The House of Representatives and Provincial Legislators will be elected on a mixed system of first past the post and proportional representation.

11. The Judiciary – Will be independent of the Executive. The Court of Appeal will function with Divisions in the Provinces along with the Provincial High Courts.

12. Public Service – There will be separate services for the Centre and the Provinces with certain categories of officers classified as all island services. The Village, Divisional and District levels of administration will all come under the Provinces. As far as is practical the Public Service will reflect the composition of the population and it will be independent.

13. Safeguards against secession – The Constitution will provide for adequate safeguards against attempts by any Province to succeed from the State.

14. Law and Order - There will be a Sri Lanka police officers service consisting of senior officers from all ethnic groups. Policing will be devolved to the Provinces with certain powers retained by the centre. National security will be the responsibility of the centre.

Sinhala response

The results for the Sinhala community are listed in Table 1. The key percentages to look at are the levels of ‘unacceptable’. First of all it should be pointed out that these results are very good when compared to places like Northern Ireland and the Middle East where levels of ‘unacceptable’ of 50 per cent plus had to or have yet to be negotiated. Having said that of course Sri Lanka is not Northern Ireland or Israel and Palestine. The political context in Sri Lanka is very different. The highest per cent ‘unacceptable’ in Sri Lanka is for ‘The Powers of the President’ at 23% and a closely related item ‘The Parliament’ at 15%. Clearly these items need close scrutiny and perhaps some adjustment if they are not to become a cause for political decent.

Table 1. Sinhala response to the APRC proposals

Sinhala per cent	Essential	Desirable	Acceptable	Tolerable	Unacceptable	DK
1. The Structure of the State	20	35	16	5	9	16
2. The Powers of the Centre and Provinces	13	28	23	5	11	21
3. The Parliament	9	21	19	6	15	29
4. Amending the Constitution	14	23	19	5	8	31
5. The Powers of the President	12	26	14	5	23	19
6. The Powers of Local Authorities	11	22	27	7	11	23
7. Language Rights	33	35	12	3	9	8
8. Religious Rights	46	30	10	3	5	6
9. Fundamental Rights	35	36	16	2	3	7
10. Electoral System	18	25	18	4	13	24
11. The Judiciary	18	28	16	4	10	24
12. Public Service	13	28	21	6	6	25
13. Safeguards against secession	18	25	19	4	8	26
14. Law and Order	21	25	16	7	14	17
15. All of the reform proposals taken together as a ‘package’	13	21	25	11	9	22

In this version of the APRC proposals ‘The Powers of the President’ are described as follows: ‘The Executive Presidency will cease to exist at the end of the incumbent’s term and be replaced by the Westminster system with a Prime Minister enjoying majority support in the House of Representatives.’ The problem with this formulation becomes quite obvious when viewed in the context of another question run in the same poll that dealt with the popularity of some key political figures. The President enjoys unparallel popularity amongst the Sinhala people at 93% ‘trust very much or trust quite a bit’ and they clearly do not want to see him step down from office. Given this fact a number of options come to mind for amending this part of the APRC proposals.

• The President could give his support to this particular reform.
• The President could remain in office for a second term.
• The President could become Prime Minister in the new Parliament.
• The powers of the President could simply be reduced.
• The President could become a Non-Executive President.
• Or some other option and/or a suitable combination of the above.

This seems to be the major problem with the APRC proposals for the Sinhala and will most probably require attention. It seems very probable that if such a change is made then the overall acceptability of the ‘package’ will rise. On this point it should be noted that the level of ‘unacceptable’ for the package as a whole is only 9% down from 23% for ‘The Powers of the President’. This is normal. In both Northern Ireland and the Middle East ‘the whole is greater than the sum of the parts’. That is to say people will accept items that they may not want for the benefits of other items.

As to the benefits the top three items for the Sinhala are Religious, Fundamental and Language Rights at 76%, 71% and 68% ‘essential or desirable’ followed fourth by ‘The Structure of the State’ at 55%. As the top priority for the Tamil community is ‘Language Rights’ this result is most encouraging for the prospects of long term peace.

Finally, with regards to Sinhala support for the APRC proposals it should be noted that a political analysis of the same set of questions produces very similar results for the Presidents party, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, with ‘Powers of the President’ at 23% ‘unacceptable’ (17% for the People’s Liberation Front and 13% for the United National Party). The major concern for the UNP is ‘Religious Rights’ at 20% ‘unacceptable’ and for the JVP it is the ‘Powers of Local Authorities’ at 27% ‘unacceptable’. Critically the level of ‘unacceptable’ for the ‘package’ as a whole is only 8% for the SLFP, 3% for the UNP and 4% for the JVP.

Tamil response

The results for the Tamil community are listed in Table 2. Again the key percentages to look at are the levels of ‘unacceptable’ and again the results are very good. The one serious potential difficulty here is ‘Religious Rights’ at 28% ‘unacceptable’. But on the same issue 44% of Tamils consider this feature of the APRC proposals to be ‘essential’. They are clearly ‘split’ on this item. Why?

Perhaps the answer is to be found in the way the question was asked? In the summary proposals ‘Religious Rights’ was drafted as, ‘Buddhism shall have ‘pride of place’ with religious freedom for all citizens being guaranteed.’ It seems very likely that those Tamils who considered this proposal to be ‘unacceptable’ were focusing on the suggestion that ‘Buddhism shall have ‘pride of place’’ while those who considered this proposal to be ‘essential’ were focused on ‘with religious freedom for all citizens being guaranteed.’ The problem here seems to be a matter of education, understanding and or some sort of good or bad previous experience in this regard. Clearly this item requires some explanation or clarification to make sure there are no misunderstandings in the Tamil community and that their religious freedom will be effectively guaranteed by a new Sri Lanka constitution.

Table 2. The Tamil response to the APRC proposals

Tamil per cent	Essential	Desirable	Acceptable	Tolerable	Unacceptable	DK
1. The Structure of the State	33	19	16	11	15	7
2. The Powers of the Centre and Provinces	31	22	21	15	4	7
3. The Parliament	37	24	17	13	1	8
4. Amending the Constitution	39	26	15	7	2	11
5. The Powers of the President	37	29	12	6	6	9
6. The Powers of Local Authorities	34	21	15	15	6	9
7. Language Rights	72	13	8	2	1	4
8. Religious Rights	44	10	6	6	28	6
9. Fundamental Rights	69	7	11	4	2	7
10. Electoral System	31	21	15	12	7	13
11. The Judiciary	49	24	12	7	1	6
12. Public Service	38	28	17	8	3	7
13. Safeguards against secession	33	17	17	16	7	11
14. Law and Order	55	17	11	7	2	8
15. All of the reform proposals taken together as a ‘package’	41	27	14	6	2	11

With regards to the benefits of the APRC proposals the top item for the Tamils is ‘Language Rights’ at 85% ‘essential or desirable’ followed by ‘Fundamental Rights’ at 76% and ‘The Judiciary’ at 73%. Fortunately the Sinhala also welcome these reforms so there should be no political difficulty with each community’s top priorities. In other conflicts around the world such a result is most unusual. Top priorities generally require a degree of ‘horse trading’. It is perhaps a mark of the understanding of each community’s needs by the other community that has produced this unusual but most welcome result and/or the careful drafting of the All Party Representative Committee.

Unfortunately it was not possible to sample the Northern Province in March when the fieldwork for this public opinion poll was undertaken. But two sets of data do provide a useful insight into the views of Tamils in these areas. Firstly, the response of TNA supporters and secondly the results from the Eastern Province.

The TNA results are very similar to those for the Tamil community as a whole except perhaps they are characterised by stronger views. For example, for Tamils as a whole (in this sample that excludes the Northern Province) ‘Language Rights’ comes in at 72% ‘essential’ but for TNA supporters this rises to 90% ‘essential’. Similarly those opposed to the ‘Religious Rights’ provision rises to 47% ‘unacceptable’ for TNA supporters from 28% for Tamils in general. However, as with other Tamils, TNA supporters are split on this issue with 43% saying this aspect of the APRC proposals is ‘essential’. Twenty two per cent of TNA supporters also find ‘The Structure of the State’ ‘unacceptable’. This is not a surprising result but 54% of TNA supporters also consider ‘The Structure of the State’ as drafted here to be ‘essential or desirable’.

The results for the Eastern Province seem to clearly reflect the ethnic mix of that part of Sri Lanka. Twelve per cent consider ‘The Powers of the President’ ‘unacceptable’ (a mostly Sinhala concern) while 27% find the ‘Religious Rights’ ‘unacceptable’ (a significantly Tamil concern but also an Up-Country Tamil and Muslim concern according to the results of this poll). Most importantly only 3% of TNA supporters oppose the ‘package’ as a whole as ‘unacceptable’ with only 1% ‘Don’t Know’ (DK) which here includes those who did not answer.

Up-Country Tamil and Muslim response

Although the recent war has largely been viewed as a conflict between the Sinhala and Tamil communities the APRC proposals have been drafted for the benefit of all the communities in Sri Lanka. Like other Tamils the Up-Country Tamils share the concern and/or misunderstanding about the ‘Religious Rights’ (46% ‘unacceptable’ and 42% ‘essential’). Their top priority is also ‘Language Rights’ at 91% ‘essential or desirable’. But unlike other Tamils they also have some misgivings about ‘The Powers of the President’ as drafted in the APRC proposals at 11% ‘unacceptable’.

Similarly 11% of the Muslim community also have reservations about ‘The Powers of the President’ and they are also split on ‘Religious Rights’ at 30% ‘essential’ and 17% ‘unacceptable’. As Tamil speakers their top priority is similarly ‘Language Rights’ at 85% ‘essential or desirable’.

The sample size for this poll was not large enough to generate reliable results for the smaller political parties in Sri Lanka. However, it was possible to get a result for the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress. The percentages follow a similar pattern to those of the Muslim community as a whole but unlike the results for the TNA, which were stronger than the Tamil results in general the SLMC results seem to be slightly more moderate than they are for other Muslims.

Support for reform

All these results are very good but if, for example, the people of Sri Lanka were asked to vote for them in a referendum would the results be different? With this point in mind each person being interviewed was asked if they would support this set of proposals (Table 3), would they change their opinion if the party they supported did or did not support the proposals and finally should the government undertake such a programme of reform anyway.

The results for this series of questions are, as with the other results of this poll, most reassuring. Eighty six per cent of the Tamil community said they would support the APRC proposals rising to 90% for Muslims and 92% for Up-Country Tamils. In the Eastern Province 91% said ‘yes’. As for the political parties the strongest support came from the TNA at 90% ‘yes’ followed by the SLMC at 88%, UNP at 85% and JVP at 83%. Similarly the people of Sri Lanka want the government to go ahead with these reforms rather than have ‘no change’.

The weakest support for the proposals was from the SLFP at 68% ‘yes’ but only 10% of them said ‘no’ with 22% undecided. However, if ‘The Powers of the President’ were revised in a way that met the concerns of the SLFP and if the President were to give his support to the APRC reforms then this 67% ‘yes’ will most probably be improved. Finally given the overall consistency of these results it seems unlikely that a few minor changes or revisions will significantly alter the outcome of these results and that the people of Sri Lanka will support the APRC proposals. Providing, of course, the political leaders of Sri Lanka do not pervert the will of the people as they sometimes have done in the past. ‘Winning the peace’, is clearly in their grasp.

Table 3. Question: ‘Would you support a package of constitutional reforms for Sri Lanka as outlined here?’

Per cent	Yes	No	DK
Sinhala	67	12	21
Tamil	86	4	10
Eastern Province	91	2	7
Up Country Tamil	92	0	8
Muslim	90	1	9
SLFP	68	10	22
UNP	85	3	12
JVP	83	4	13
TNA	90	2	7
SLMC	88	5	7

About the poll

The research for this poll was carried out by the staff of Social Indicator of Colombo, on behalf of Dr. Colin Irwin from the Institute of Irish Studies at the University of Liverpool who developed the peace polls method as part of the successful Northern Ireland peace process. The survey work for the first poll in this series was completed between March and May 2008 and included a random sample of 1,700 people from all parts of Sri Lanka with the exception of the Northern Province. Using the same methods the survey work for this second poll was completed a year later in March 2009. All interviews were face-to-face and the margin of error is +/- 2.27% with questionnaires and full results available at www.peacepolls.org.

Similar Posts:

• Peace in Sri Lanka: Negotiating with the Northern ‘Separatists’?
• Rohan Edrisinha on the APRC Proposals and the 13th Amendment to the Constitution
• Poll results: How do you think we can end the war and attain peace in Sri Lanka?
• What Can We Expect from the APRC?
• Consensus building for peace

The continued denial of freedom of movement for over 250,000 innocent men, women and children – including thousands who are injured, some with disabilities, some mentally challenged, some pregnant, many sick and elderly and most of them traumatized – is a serious violation of their rights as citizens of Sri Lanka. To do so even after weaning out over 11,000 individuals who had some form of LTTE connection calls into question the Government’s motives, sensitivity and its sincerity in reaching out to the Tamils.

The need for ‘screening’ used by the Government as a pretext to justify this detention ‘sounded’ reasonable at the beginning. But it looks increasingly like a smoke screen behind which a policy of prolonged detention of Tamil civilians in violation of the constitution is to be executed. To date, we haven’t been told of any one family, not even one, that is deemed to have been ‘screened’ and therefore free to go out of these camps. This is despite over 40,000 people being inside these camps for over four months and some 800 of them being inside such camps for over 15 months.

To the contrary, the infrastructure facilities and administrative procedures that are being put in place on the ground – in Menic farm where most of the displaced civilians are currently incarcerated – indicate that the IDPs are going to be kept there for a very long time. They are going to kept for much longer than they would want to be there and contrary to their first preference which is to go and stay with friends and relatives in the interim before returning to their original places after demining.

In this background it is not only the idealists and those with a principled stand based on rights who are critiquing the Governments policy. Now, even the realists and those who have less qualms about interning the population of two and a half districts so that those in the other nineteen and a half could feel more secure are beginning to question the rationale. There are people in the Government too, who are looking for alternative options due to reasons including the high maintenance cost, the policy being in violation of the constitution and norms, and critically because it makes subsequent reconciliation that much more difficult. But the real decision makers in the Government are not swayed by human rights, ethics or constitutional propriety. The military necessity, some real and some perceived, dictates their decisions.

There have been previous instances in the history of the world when countries have been faced with such a dilemma – balancing the security imperative of some with the liberty of some others. The internment of about 120,000 Japanese-Americans in USA in the wake of World War II is one such instance. It was later singled out by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as the “worst single wholesale violation of civil rights of American citizens in our history.” Is the detention of Tamil civilians in Sri Lanka going to be the shame of our Country?

There are striking similarities. In both cases the designers and decision makers operated on the ‘conclusory belief’ that ethnicity or race determined loyalty and or complicity. The victims of this belief were held collectively guilty and collectively punished. It treated all of them guilty until proven innocent.

In the US after the attack on Pearl Harbour the Army suspected the loyalties of the first and second generation Japanese Americans and feared that they might operate as a fifth column. They alleged that some of them were working in collaboration with the ‘enemy’ and that some others might do so in the future. So the army ‘after the initial plan for ‘voluntary’ exclusion did not succeed, forcibly removed them, first to “assembly centers” and then to “relocation centers”. These latter camps, it is reported were ‘located in desolate western areas, were surrounded by barbed wire and guarded by military police’. Not too different from the “welfare camps” in Menic farm created by clearing forest areas in Vanni.

”Life in the relocation camps was spartan, with shoddy and crowded buildings, defective facilities, faulty heating, inadequate health care, and limited education programs. Privacy was impossible. Families and individuals alike lost their identities and became known only by identification numbers” describes a report on Japanese internment. It says “The history of life …. in the relocation camps is one of suffering and deprivation.” Compared to it the living conditions are much worse in camps in Menic Farm where Tamil civilians are currently detained.

One Japanese-American individual, an interment camp survivor, recollecting the time in the camps says, “One of my most poignant memories is of an intelligent and progressive-minded mother who was still managing — with much difficulty — to conceal from her 4-year-old that they were prisoners in what most inmates considered a racial internment camp”. Not too different a daily predicament facing the thousands of mothers in Menic Farm trying to explain to their four-year olds why otherwise respectable and law abiding people are being kept behind barbed wire, guarded by armed soldiers just because they are Tamil and are from Mullaithivu Kilinochchi, and Mannar Districts.

The internment had caused devastating long-term impacts on the Japanese-Americans who had gone through it. Many continued to suffer psychologically for the rest of their lives. Survey information found long term internees after release had a 2.1 times greater risk of cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular mortality and premature death than did a non-interned counterpart. Those who had undergone internment died 1.6 years earlier than their non-interned counter parts. ‘The Experience of Injustice: Health Consequences of the Japanese American Internment,’ Gwendolyn M. Jensen (1997) documents some of these impacts. The internment also had long term impact on their livelihoods and economic status. In Sri Lanka if the detention continues for a longer period it will inevitably have such long term consequences on the 250,000 plus Tamil civilians. If it happens it is clear who has to take responsibility for it.

In the US the internment is now recognized as a ‘great injustice’. It was made possible by several factors concluded a Government commission appointed several years later. In essence, ”it was the result of racial prejudice, wartime hysteria, and the failure of political leadership”.

The commission found, General DeWitt, who was the chief military officer responsible for internment, was temperamentally disposed to exaggerate the measures necessary to maintain security, and placed security far ahead of any concern for the liberty and constitutional rights of citizens. It also notes that those representing the interest of civil rights and civil liberties in Congress, the press, and other forums were either completely silent or even supported these measures at that time. There was no effective opposition.

Finally in the eighties the US Government based on the findings of this commission passed legislation to acknowledge the fundamental injustice of the internment of Japanese, apologized on behalf of the people of the United States for internment of its citizens and allocated funds to pay compensation. Is Sri Lanka going in the same road?

While the similarities are striking there are also significant differences. Firstly even in the internment camps there was freedom of movement – those interned were allowed to go out and work, stay as a family unit, pursue education in university and in some instances move in with relatives outside the camps. What they were prevented from doing was returning back to their homes in the exclusion zones in the west coast. In contrast the civilians in the camps in Menic Farm are incarcerated without any such liberty. Still thousands of families are separated and forced to live with complete strangers in crowded tents.

Secondly, the United States Government assumed the full cost of maintaining these internment camps. The financial implications always weighed heavily on the decisions the Government took. Whereas in Sri Lanka, the foreigners foot most of the bill. The Government succeeds in getting the UN and NGOs to pay for its programs, who in their eagerness to ‘engage’ seem to be very willing to lower their standards and compromise on principles in order to process the next tranche of money!
So the detention continues, in violation of the constitution, framed as military necessity, under the excuse of humanitarian imperative, contributing to long term devastation for a section of Sri Lankan citizens.

Not sure who in Sri Lanka will have the courage to say what Francis Biddle, the then Attorney General of the Unites States expressed, that “the program was ill advised, unnecessary and unnecessarily cruel”. The previous Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva pointed out the illegality of the detention of civilians but words such as cruelty won’t be found in any official dialogue between the Government or the NGOs. We don’t have to repeat the US treatment of American-Japanese citizens during World War II. That is unless, we actually want to!

Photos available at: http://www.sfmuseum.org/war/evactxt.html

Similar Posts:

• Vanni displaced: when will they be free from clutches of tigers and lions?
• What are we celebrating? Questions to ponder
• Setting the record straight: Challenges of internment for IDPs
• An eye-witness account of IDP camp conditions in Sri Lanka
• Why are the Vanni civilians still being held hostage?

Sri Lanka was once a ‘model democracy’ with a welfare state and social indicators that were the envy of the developing world. Hence, there was great optimism that life would return to normal, the barriers and check-points come down, tourists and foreign investments flow back, and the economy finally take off in an environment of peace and security once the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) were defeated. Residents of central Colombo who are daily inconvenienced by the security arrangements of the President and various VIPs that had turned the city into a veritable battle-field had hoped to see the barriers and check-points go. They have been disappointed!

After the defeat of the LTTE, it was hoped that South Asia’s most desirable capital city, whose many beautiful trees had been cut down to enhance VIP security, would once again become people, pedestrian and environment -friendly now that the war was over. Residents of Colombo also looked forward to an end to the culture of politicians breaking speed limits with impunity and the lifting of Emergency Regulations (ER), which had also been used and abused by the State during the Southern Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), uprising in the late eighties and early nineties when tens of thousands died in Southern Sri Lanka. These hopes have been dashed. It is increasingly evident that the Colombo regime’s insecurities (despite or perhaps because of weeks of vainglorious victory celebrations), coupled with thirty years of war has left an institutional legacy and “security’ mindset that would need considerable shift before Lanka takes off.

The question on many minds at this time is: will militarization be a substitute for democratization– beyond the show of elections? The impact of thirty years of armed conflict between successive Sri Lankan governments and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), may be analyzed in terms of human, economic, and governance costs.

It is increasingly clear that the governance cost and democracy deficit would have the greatest long term impact on the country. The human costs of three decades of conflict are evident in over 100,000 lives lost and maimed, and over half a million displaced at different times including the 280,000 in internment camps in Vavuniya at this time. The mounting economic cost of conflict is evident in the fact that the final year of war the GoSL was spending almost 17 percent of GDP on the war effort. This is partly the reason for a 1.9 billion IMF loan request at this time. Sri Lanka has the largest armed forces per capita in South Asia and trouble paying salaries. Yet, strangely since the war ended there are plans to enlarge the military by 50% - an odd sort of military Keynsianism given that the country does not produce its own arms and spends billions on armaments that it can hardly afford.

Much work lies ahead if the narrative of economic boom in Lanka is to be realized. The challenge now is to move beyond a highly militarized, state-centric national security paradigm and prioritize human security and development which enabled the island to achieve the highest social indicators in South Asia. It is thus that the military victory over the LTTE may be translated into a stable and sustainable peace in Sri Lanka.

Governance Cost of Conflict and Militarization

The last three years of war to defeat the LTTE saw a serious erosion of governance structures, democratic institutions, and traditions of multiculturalism and co-existence among diverse ethnic and religious communities. It is clear that post-LTTE, the government would need to rethink the military-centric national security state and the repression that it cultivated during the war, which in some ways mimicked the tactics and strategies of the enemy which ran a quasi-state for a few years in the Vanni.

In his book “Brave New World Order” (Orbis Books, 1992, paper), Jack Nelson Pallmeyer identified several characteristics of a National Security State, the primary one of which is

“the military not only guarantees the security of the state against all internal and external enemies, it has enough power to determine the overall direction of the society.. In a National Security State the military exerts important influence over political, economic, as well as military affairs… Authentic democracy depends on participation of the people. National Security States limit such participation in a number of ways: They sow fear and thereby narrow the range of public debate. they restrict and distort information; and they define policies in secret and implement those policies through covert channels and clandestine activities. The state justifies such actions through rhetorical pleas of “higher purpose” and vague appeals to “national security.”

Thirty years of war had significant impact on democratic institutions in Sri Lanka. During the final push to defeat the LTTE the GoSL discredited the idea of peace. Those opposed to war and those who spoke for Human Rights were termed ‘traitors’. Since the war ended the government plans to build a War Museum rather than a peace and reconciliation museum. An astrologer who predicted difficult days ahead for the powers that be in Colombo was recently arrested and would be under observation of three months. Meanwhile, according to the Army commander the military would be expanded by 50,000, even though the war is over and Sri Lanka has one of the largest militaries per capita in South Asia. The recruitment of additional troops to man camps in the north-east is of particular concern and suggests that rather than restore substantive democracy, the government plans a form of military occupation with the collusion of allied Tamil paramilitary groups. Moderate Tamil voices remain marginalized and have raised questions regarding the legitimacy of elections in a region with such a large displaced population.

While the country is broke and in need of an IMF loan to pay among other things the salaries of soldiers and an enormous cabinet of ministers that includes a number of the president’s relatives, the mindset of militarism lives on. The Sri Lanka government’s internment of 280,000 Tamils, some of whom were witnesses to war crimes and may give evidence, in barbwire fenced camps and treatment of them as a national security threat after claiming to have ‘rescued’ them from the LTTE; as well as, failure to lift Emergency Rule and disarm paramilitaries in the north and east; the phenomenon of white van abductions of journalists, the failure to start a process of demilitarization and reconciliation with the minorities has led the United States to extend travel warnings for those wishing to visit Sri Lanka. It seems unlikely that western tourists would return any time soon.

It is axiomatic that, as externalised threats are perceived and nations go to war, civil liberties and rights in the domestic sphere are eroded. This phenomenon was observed by Max Weber, a founding father of the discipline of sociology. While a number of ministries have proliferated those that actually have power to make and implement policy are few and controlled by the President and his brothers. Nepotism is extremis! During the last few years of the conflict development projects were required to go through and get clearance from the Ministry of Defense. Such centralization has weakened democracy and strengthened the grip of the ruling family on power. One Rajapakse is Defense Secretary and the other, a non-elected member of parliament who also controls reconstruction in the north and east. It is widely understood that together the triumvirate control seventy percent of the economy via control of key Ministries.

Within days of the celebrations following the capture of LTTE’s de facto capital in January 2009, one of the island’s leading journalists, Lasantha Wickrematunge, Editor-in-Chief of the Sunday Leader newspaper, a liberal anti-establishment paper known for exposing corruption and nepotism in the state apparatus, was assassinated in broad daylight in Colombo. At his funeral, where thousands gathered, an effigy of the Sri Lanka’s President, Mahinda Rajapaksa, was burnt. The slain journalist’s funeral was attended by political leaders, media representatives, civil society organisations and senior foreign diplomats in Colombo. The slain journalist, who was also a lawyer, had penned his own obituary three day’s before his assassination: “And then they came for me”, naming in all but words his killers. His final editorial published posthumously which has come to be known as the ‘letter from the grave’ constitutes a powerful indictment on the regime that would be hard to shake off in a country where astrology, the symbolic and uncanny, carries significant weight in politics. Minimally, the state remains accused of promoting a ‘culture of impunity’ that has rendered Sri Lanka ‘one of the world’s most dangerous places for journalists’ according to the organisation, ‘Reporters without Borders’. In the past two years, at least eight journalists have been killed in the country, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

As the war (including an information war) escalated, the phenomenon of extra-judicial killings rose. Wickramatunge’s assassination was in the wake of a series of killings and intimidation of journalists and lawyers, and attacks on independent media institutions in the south.. In August 2008, Sri Lanka lost its seat in the United Nation’s Human Rights Council and has since turned down several requests of the United Nations Human Rights Commission to set up an observer mission to monitor the situation in the country. At the end of the war the United Nations Human Rights Commission called for an independent inquiry into war crimes by the parties to the conflict.

The culture of militarization and impunity that the conflict had enabled needs to be rolled back. Sri Lanka has one of the largest standing armies per capita in South Asia and alternative jobs would be necessary for the over 200,000 troops. The military victory over the LTTE is only one half of the solution to building a peaceful and stable polity. It would also be necessary to address the intra-group dynamics of conflict. Many of those who fought and died and were disabled were from poor rural communities and marginalized castes groups. A war economy had grown and many of the rural poor worked as soldiers and (women go as housemaids to the Middle East). In a time of rising unemployment due to the global recession it would be necessary to boost the economy and provide jobs.

Myth and reality about the “invincibility” of the LTTE: The Global Context

The ‘invincibility’ of the Liberation Tigers of Eelam and the terror threat they posed to world peace may have been often exaggerated. There were several reasons for the defeat of the LTTE. Principle among them was the changing global security environment that became increasingly hostile to groups that used terrorist methods post 9/11, as well as the egotism and compounding mistakes of the LTTE leader- Prabakaran, principle among which was the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi – former Prime Minister of India. Prior to 9/11 and the global war on terror the LTTE and its transnational network had grown and benefited from a period of relatively unfettered globalization at the end of the Cold War also given considerable international sympathy for the plight of minority Tamil speaking peoples in Sri Lanka. It was recognized that one man’s terrorist may be another’s liberation fighter.

After 9/11 with the global “war on terror’ there was far less international space and tolerance for the organization to maneuver and the government capitalized on this fact by renaming the conflict in Sri Lanka a “war on terror” and soliciting international assistance to shut down the LTTE’s funding and supply networks from the disaspora. While the Rajapakse government waged a determined battle against the organization after abrogating the Norwegian–brokered Cease Fire in 2008, and provided the armed forces all that was needed by way of arms, ammunition, and men, the international context had made the LTTE apparently invincible in the previous decades had changed. It is also arguable that the demise of the LTTE was also largely due to its leader’s egotism and the compounding of mistakes, including the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi which had turned India against the group.

The government of Sri Lanka has very successfully assembled a group of Asian donors, prominent among them China, Japan and India to counterbalance western criticism of its conduct of the last days of the conflict. These donors place less value on human security and human rights and tend to have a state-cenric approach to security. The need to move beyond state-centric security discourses and address the root causes of conflicts in South Asia from a post-WoT’ paradigm is however increasingly apparent.

Since 9/11, instead of measured and targeted responses to terrorist acts, militarization and advocacy for military solutions have sometimes exacerbated and aggravated the root causes of conflicts that require social and political-economic solutions. Social sector and welfare state spending has been reduced with the claim that development cannot occur without defense, even though the poverty and conflict trap is a consequence of the transfer of resources that accompanies ballooning defense expenditure, socio-economic decline, increased regional and economic inequality, structural violence and aid dependence.. Increasingly, it is obvious that inclusive development and peace building is necessary for regional security in Sri Lanka, and you can’t have one without the others.

In the last three years militarization and the ‘national security state” had become pervasive with significant erosion of Sri Lanka’s democratic traditions and institutions. While the military victory over the LTTE is conclusive and there is little chance that it would regroup and return any time soon, the military victory needs to be converted into a stable and sustainable peace. Other long term, low intensity, ethno-national conflicts in the region point to the fact that groups fighting for autonomy or rights for minorities may re-group and return years or decades later as was the case in Nepal and Aceh Indonesia, unless there is a political solution that addresses the root causes of conflict. To ensure a sustainable peace the government would need to win the confidence of minority cultural groups, and work toward reconciliation and address of the root causes of the conflict. Simultaneously, it would be necessary to repair a dysfunctional democracy whose institutions were significantly eroded in the course of decades of war induced Emergency Rule, which the government has still not lifted.

Similar Posts:

• Voices of Reconciliation Radio - New Content
• Which comes first - Human Rights, Media or Terrorism?
• Sri Lanka’s Dirty War
• Militarizing the Media Mahagedera?
• Review of “Ethnic Warfare in Sri Lanka and the UN Crisis” by William Clarance

Our country is at a historical juncture with many controversies and contradictions. The resultant complex scenario leads to many questions but answers are not that easy to come by Jubliant triumphalism with deep and down to earth egoism on one hand and on the other human sufferings at its worst – worst of its kind that our history has recorded. Amidst a lot of sadness at the loss of human beings, amidst a lot of sadness of knowing that they are many who are injured maimed and had lost their eye sight and limbs, amidst reports of s insufficient food, water, medical facilities and medicine, we are at a time of the worst human suffering. The Sinhalese soldiers who are killed, the LTTE combatants who are killed, the innocent civilian’s men women, little children and grown up children and pregnant mothers, who are killed speak volumes of tragic scenarios. On the other hand there were celebrations of hoisting the national flags, the crackers and kiribath, Bailas and street singing. Happy and jubilant indeed are those who have lost their kith and kin by the LTTE. Happy indeed are those who could rejoice at the elimination of a terrorist out fit of murderers. Justifiably those who were affected may a heap a sign of relief. Citizens who abhor violence may also have sense of relief.

However, what intrigued me was why is it that the majority of the Sinhalese, all Muslims and all Tamils did not participate in the celebrations? Are they not happy that the LTTE is eliminated? No, that is not the answer. The anti LTTE Tamils, Sinhalese and Muslims who did not participate in a note of over joyed enthusiasm were a different kettle of fish. This absence presents other things. They are people with maturity who know how to act with dignity and restraint during times of crisis. They are people with a kind, humane heart and mind who can’t rejoice and be happy at such an unprecedental tragedy of human suffering. I think people like them keep the world go despite all the human short comings. They welcomed the “Good News” but were unhappy over the other events.

I am reminded of an incident in history. After the Kalinga war – when thousands of people combatants and non combatants were killed, King Asoka was so deeply troubled and moved by the carnage that he embraced Buddhist Dharma of ahimsa – non-violence. How many of our fellow citizens would be moved like king Asoka? Have those moral values become things of past, put in the dustbin of history? I keep asking without knowing the answer.

I am also puzzled at the reason for the resurgence of the Lion flag – what does the message, signify? Was Sri Lanka liberated from an imperial colonial power? Was any one prevented from hoisting the Lion flag when LTTE was in operation? Did it signify a sudden emergence of nationalism which is now different and which was dwarfed owing the LTTE presence?

While on the subject of the flag, I have a few thoughts on it. For a long time, I had consistently entertained reservations on the Lankan flag and what it conveys: As a person who is deeply anti war, and against all kinds of violence – imperial caste, class ethnic and gender. I hate all weapons of war and ferocious animals that kill human beings. The sword and the roaring lion look so violent for me. It is a subjective feeling from the time that I was a teenager and I shared my feelings and thoughts with my late father. He agreed with me but both of us had no political power for any transformation and the pen never did wield power in my experience. When we are at a time hoping for transformation, I am hoping against hope that the change over the national flag will also take place. We can follow the example of India and have a Buddhist flavour of ahimsa and an inclusive message of loving kindness, a kind of dharmic message. This is merely a wishful thinking of a concerned person. Let us eradicate violence starting from our national flag.

I can also make a connection here. The triumphant celebrations, sometimes stage-managed and with drunken participants, shouted slogans with the intention of hurting the ordinary Tamil Citizens. Some Tamils were forced to hoist the flag and ridiculing statements were hurled at them. Most of them lived in fear for three or four days, agonising with memories of the past, 1958 and 1983 and a Sinhala friend told me that in some instances 1983 was on the verge of being re-enacted. (I do not normally refer to people by ethnic or caste names but here the word “Sinhalese” has some signification, it is not a biased statement by a Tamil as someone would perceive). Did the sword and roaring lion instigate them? Or did it inspire them to be proactive. For a long time I could not be converted into a patriot or a nationalist as I felt that there is nothing to be proud of or happy about of our country, our culture. There are so many miserable human beings and many miserable conditions which marginalise a huge number our citizens on the basis on ethnicity, class, caste and gender. Violence of all kinds verbal, physical and psychological is excessively present with or without the LTTE. I find myself, as someone always sceptical or questioning the glory of nationalism. Besides, our National flag has stripes and borders to represent the Tamils, Muslims and Moors and other cultures living in Sri Lanka. The crimson back ground is supposed to represent minor religions and ethnic groups, Portuguese, Dutch and Burghers. Why this hierarchy with people who have minds and hearts of the human race who are all citizens of the country? What does it symbolically tell them? You are not the same as we. You are the others. Now that the President has in a statesmanship fashion declared in the Parliament that in Sri Lanka that we will have no minorities hereafter. We can get rid of these lines and borders that divide us and offer graciously and magnanimously everyone an equal political status.

We have had enough violence. 1958, 1977, 1983 (Counter-violence to the killing in Tinnaveli) the LTTE violence and State violence, the para military violence, the white van violence, killings of dissenters of various ideological makings. Shouldn’t we now have a flag which depicts non-violence? Ahimsa as our motto. Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Catholics, atheists and agnostics - no one will oppose the concept of non-violence.

I find myself re-affirming with what Bertrand Russell said. He was quite right when he said that “patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons. I am also in agreement with Samuel Johnson who wrote, patriotism is “the last refuge of a scoundrel”. Perhaps I will be named a “traitor” because I am criticising patriotism and nationalism which are considered lofty ideas. Or glorious terms.

There were many people who did not hoist the national flag, some in protest, some couldn’t be bothered with symbolic actions and a few others dismissed it philosophically saying and thinking, there are many other priorities in life. These men and women were not forced to do, though a few Tamils were forced by the crowds through a mob-mentality to hoist the national flag. Many Government offices, Private Business concerns and organisations and Institutes were not requested to close office. But Nationalists could order that certain offices should close. The question that begs the answer is can the so called nationalists force and threaten independent free thinking citizens to do something which they don’t considers worth while doing? Can they be ordered to pay large sums of money towards any cause to which they don’t subscribe. Do the nationalists have special rights and privileges to be violent, verbally or physically requesting something in the name of a cause? Nationalism or patriotism or of helping the disabled and maimed is certainly different from being ordered and threatened.

This indeed is a sad state of affairs, of unprincipled minds and misdirected sentiments.

Similar Posts:

• National flags and the symbolism of accomodating minorities
• Concerned Tamils, but what about the rest?
• From Akkaraipattu
• For a Sri Lankan Nationalism
• TMVP in same dustbin as LTTE in the past?

US President Barack Obama has urged Russia to turn from the past, emphasising the common goals the US shares with its former Cold War rival.

He told young graduates in Moscow they were the "last generation" to be born in a "divided world".

Mr Obama sought to reassure the country that the US sought a "strong, peaceful and prosperous" Russia.

The speech comes on the second day of Mr Obama's visit to Moscow and followed his first meeting with Vladimir Putin.

During the breakfast talks he told the former president turned prime minister that he had done "extraordinary work" leading Russia.

I read with interest the concerns of a group of Tamils on the situation of IDPs and their suggestions for a speedy recovery of a human tragedy. However, I am a little concerned and in fact unhappy why only a group of Tamils should be concerned? Aren’t the Sinhalese, Muslims, Malays and Burghers not concerned about the plight of the IDPs. Why this separatism on an issue of humanitarian recovery? Why shouldn’t there be a common platform – a common platform has many significations. Ideologically it speaks of National unity, a spirit to togetherness, solidarity and collective and cooperative efforts of a common citizenship. Practically it means greater numerical involvement and greater political strength. The greater the number, the greater the impact and it leads to seriousness of purpose which the many actors in the field – the state, the judiciary, the civil society, religious and theological groups, the church, the temples and the Viharas – will pay attention. A meaningful weightage may be added to the act.

There are many among us who take humanitarian, sympathetic, empathetic and progressive views on the unfortunate present tragedy. Newspaper columnists such as Sharni, Tissaranee Gunasekera, Lyn Ockerz, Emile Vander Poorten, retired civil servants who were trained in ideas of liberalism such as Somapala Gunadheera, the old leftists trained in Internationalism such as Upali Cooray, CRM members, who know the civil rights of the citizens, educationalists and university dons such as Prof. Ganantha Obeysekera, the entire women’s movement who believe in sisterhood is global and many others who will take common cause with this group.

It is true that some old stalwarts of the old left and the CRM are lost to us and some of the new left of the EPRLF, EROS, JVP have become nationalists and ultra nationalists. However, there are many who are not leftist and who do not subscribe to any isms, but have emerged as concerned human beings. It has been reported, I report gleefully, that the Sinhalese in the border villages who ere brutalised by the LTTE are also contributing relief materials to the affected IDPs. They have commonsense or perhaps folk wisdom to isolate suffering human beings of the present from the past or present violent people of the LTTE. We have lost Regi Siriwardhena and Bishop Lakshman Wickremasinghe, but we have others.

Let us go back to the old traditions of the Youth Congress of Jaffna, the old left – LSSP and CP, the CRM, Citizens Committee and such organisations and groups where ethnic, religious, Caste and Class belongings of the constituent members didn’t matter for unified affirmative actions.

Let us build a common platform of concerned citizens and not merely “concerned Tamils.”

Similar Posts:

• BATTICALOA CONSORTIUM OF HUMANITARIAN AGENCIES FACILITATING TO THE BATTICOLA IDPS
• Vaharai starves - International Community is Silent
• An “unpatriotic” appeal for a UN mechanism to protect civilians
• Detailed response to Jeevan Thiagarajah’s ‘Settling conflicts after the war and doing what is right’
• The Lessons We Never Learn

“All too often it is innocent men, women and children who pay the price of war. We cannot ask them to pay the price of peace.”

Report of the Secretary-General on peacebuilding in the immediate aftermath of conflict, United Nations

This morning, as I was writing this column, I noticed a strange pattern of tea-leaves amongst the dregs of satiation. The pattern suggested that the Chief Executive’s term in office was out of his hands and largely defined by filial ambition. The languid leaves also suggested that the boundless aspirations of the gods of war physically closest to him posed the greatest danger to his legacy and life to boot. Alarmed at such a bleak future and the danger it posed to our Executive Übermensch, I poured myself another cuppa. The damned pattern remained essentially the same, though just near the stem, a few leaves foretold an increasingly violent clampdown on dissent erasing any real threat to the government’s prospects over the long-term. Depressed, I switched to coffee, but have preserved the tea-leaves for production in court as evidence that the company responsible for its production is an agent of the LTTE. Evidently, what the LTTE could not win through violence, they are now clearly attempting to subliminally suggest through Golden Flowery Orange Pekoe. Perhaps existing travel advisories to Sri Lanka must be revised to caution that shamans, soothsayers, psychics and astrologers stand the risk of arrest, interrogation and production in court if they see a future even a shade less luminous than government.

When I first got to hear from a friend of the arrest of an astrologer in Sri Lanka for daring to suggest a future that unsettled the regime, I thought it was a joke. This is a new low even for a government filled to the brim with humourless heroes. More than white vans, this arrest suggests something more sinister – that the government will viciously clampdown on any narrative, any dissent, no matter how trivial or disconnected with telluric realities. And this is the same government that asks us to place our confidence in its ability to engineer peace.

We’ve been here before.

The UNF’s disastrous design of a peace process, defined by a political leadership unable and unwilling to communicate meaningfully with voters in the South resulted in unmet expectations of economic prosperity that eventually contributed to the rise of violent Sinhala nationalism in opposition to the CFA and subsequently the government’s demise. Memories of voters are short lived. To constantly relive 12^th May 2009 suggests the essential insecurity of a regime that cannot, and will not, move past its crowning moment. To do so is to enter the unfamiliar and uncomfortable domain of peacebuilding.

The very term peacebuilding suggests that peace exists in a state of siege or not at all. But the hardest part of peacebuilding is explaining what it means, and must entail, to polity and society that for three decades have had their lives and imagination conditioned by war, emergency rule and normalisation of violence. Such societies unthinkingly peg peace to violent foundations, either in their support for terrorism or in their support for war against terrorism. Existing literature on conflict resolution deals very badly with an example like Sri Lanka, for it does not capture or offer any meaningful answers to the vexed problem of a government adopting, without care or concern, the very tactics of the terrorists they are fighting against in order to defeat them.

In a column that irked, among others, the Government’s Peace Secretariat during the war, I called the Chief Executive and his inner cabal of war architects “murderous brutes”. I see no reason to revise or retract this statement today, because it is precisely why we won the war against the LTTE so quickly and decisively. It is entirely possible, and obviously very desirable, that such people change for the better. But the challenge of peacebuilding and conflict resolution practice and theory as they stand today is to deal with a regime that does not after war’s end. The recently released UN Report of the Secretary-General on peacebuilding in the immediate aftermath of conflict is interesting reading in this regard.

Being a typical UN document, it is turgid, full of platitudes and needlessly long (though the “Please Recycle” notice on the front page suggests the UN is now more acutely conscious of how much of paper it wastes). It offers no new thinking or real innovation, and contains plenty of recommendations and proposes more studies. Yet it’s value lies in its reiteration to UN member states that peacebuilding after war is a tremendously challenging task especially for victors. It cautions that the post-war context brings significant challenges to political leadership and civil society, and that “threats to peace are often greatest during this early phase”. The report notes the value of coordination and collaboration between domestic, regional and international actors, “since no single actor has the capacity to meet the needs in any of the priority areas of peacebuilding”. A point that captures the UNF’s failure to embed the value of the CFA in the minds of the voter in the South warrants a fuller excerpt, for it is a set of challenges facing the incumbents in power today to a much greater degree (since the Prime Minister of the UNF was never seen as a god),

The end of conflict… tends to create high expectations for the delivery of concrete political, social and economic dividends. Building confidence in a peace process requires that at least some of these expectations are met. Equally important is effective communication and an inclusive dialogue between national authorities and the population, not least to create realistic expectations of what can be achieved in the short run.

The full participation of women in policy making is stressed, as well as the inclusion of civil society and those who have been socially, economically and politically marginalised. The report courageously notes that post-war, “some of the national actors with whom the international community must engage may be implicated in past human rights abuses or significant atrocities”. Disappointingly and unsurprisingly, the report does not go on to explain how the mechanisms of such engagement with regimes charged with war crimes can be fashioned. In line with the government’s post-war priorities, the report notes that “jump starting economic recovery can be one of the greatest bolsters of security and provides the engine for future recovery.” On the other hand, it stresses the importance of the safe and sustainable return and reintegration of IDPs, strengthening the rule of law, reforming the security sector, promoting inclusive dialogue and reconciliation. Juxtapose this basic common sense with the propaganda and actions of the Rajapakse regime during and especially after the end of war. No astrologer is needed to predict what is evident upon sober reflection of facts suggesting the hubris, insensitivity, arrogance and violent exclusion that defines governance and government.

In his Nobel Peace Prize address in 1998, John Hume noted that,

“All of us are asked to respect the views and rights of others as equal of our own and, together, to forge a covenant of shared ideals based on commitment to the rights of all allied to a new generosity of purpose.”

Where is this generosity of purpose today? Instead of it we have sprawling IDP camps, sarcophagi of hopelessness and destitution, where success is measured not by standards of human dignity and decency but by comparisons to what we think their lives must have been under the LTTE. The sheer absurdity and considerable violence of such comparisons are lost to many, perhaps on account of the greater farce of attempts to secure peace by abducting journalists and arresting recalcitrant astrologers.

In one sense though, the government’s avowed design for peacebuilding in Sri Lanka is heavenly, for it is certainly like nothing on earth.

[A version of this essay appears in the Daily Mirror on 7th July 2009]

Similar Posts:

• Poll: Prospects for Peace in Sri Lanka in 2007
• Interview with Austin Fernando, a Peacetime Secretary of Defence in Sri Lanka
• BETWEEN SCYLLA AND CHARYBDIS, THE HAPLESS MR. VITHARANA
• Bala Tampoe on war and the erosion of democratic governance in Sri Lanka
• An infamous proposal

I was surprised to see that a piece I wrote recently for Groundviews was mentioned prominently in two articles in the Island last Saturday and Sunday. Since the original article was not published in the Island, and since the rejoinders misrepresent my argument in various ways, I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight.

For those who would like to read the original article in full, it can be found here. My basic argument was that the denial of freedom of movement to the Vanni IDPs and incarceration of them in internment camps (1) was a violation of their democratic rights as citizens of Sri Lanka; (2) was an insult to the soldiers who risked (and in some cases lost) their lives in the belief that they were bringing freedom to these people; (3) contradicted President Rajapaksa’s statement in his victory speech that there were no longer any minorities in Sri Lanka by creating a minority that did not enjoy rights like freedom of movement which are enjoyed by the majority; and (4) increased the chances of a new insurgency by converting Tamils who are well-disposed towards the government into people with a grudge against the government. I ended by observing that when the internment of 280,000 civilians is seen in the context of assaults on and murder of journalists, and policy proposals for the expansion of the army by 100,000 and cancellation of the presidential elections, it looks as if we could be heading towards a dictatorship.

It is hard to extract any coherent arguments from the barrage of innuendo, misquotations (e.g. I never said anything about a ‘Sinhala-Buddhist dictatorship’!), disinformation and abuse in Lucien Rajakarunanayake’s rejoinder, but let me try. He suggests I should be concerned about asylum-seekers locked up in British detention centres, and indeed I am. In 1988-90, when I was doing research for my book on Tamil refugees in Britain, and Tamil, Muslim and Sinhalese displaced people in Sri Lanka, I was shocked to find that there were asylum-seekers in detention centres, and participated in a campaign demanding the closure of these centres and release of the refugees. The imprisonment of innocents – whether asylum-seekers in Europe, Palestinians (including children) in Israel, or the young man from Chad recently released without charge from Guantanamo Bay – is an injustice and violation of human rights wherever in the world it occurs, and I have protested, and will continue to protest, against it. But why should I not be concerned when the same thing happens in my own country? Is Sri Lanka not part of the world? Are the IDPs not human beings?

Rajakarunanayake alleges that I have ‘joined the bandwagon of pro-LTTE Sri Lanka bashers’. For those who have not read my original article, let me quote in full the statements on the basis of which he concludes that I have joined the pro-LTTE bandwagon: ‘It is certainly true that the LTTE was keeping hundreds of thousands of civilians hostage and using them as forced labour, a source of child and adult conscripts, and a human shield from behind which they could engage in offensive operations against Sri Lanka’s armed forces… the LTTE used the cessation of hostilities over the Sinhala and Tamil New Year to tighten its hold over the trapped civilians, not to release them… Furthermore, hatred engendered in these IDPs by the LTTE leadership’s utterly brutal treatment of them, especially at the end of the war, is the best guarantee we have that there is no chance it can be revived, regardless of what the pro-LTTE diaspora may think.’ I fail to understand how anyone could construe these statements as being ‘pro-LTTE’! But given that others falsely accused of being ‘pro-LTTE’ have been arrested, jailed, abducted, assaulted and killed, I’m wondering if I should interpret this attack by the Director of the Presidential Secretariat Policy Research and Information Unit (PRIU) as a veiled (or not-so-veiled) threat?

Malinda Seneviratne takes issue with me for referring to ‘camps where conditions are in many cases abysmal,’ citing his own visit to a camp where IDPs have three full meals a day, more than enough drinking water and water for bathing, medical services, toilets, schools and other amenities. I am well aware of such camps – hence my qualification that conditions were abysmal in ‘many’, not all cases – but it would be naïve in the extreme to think that these conditions obtain in all camps. I did not compare the IDP camps to ‘Hitler’s concentration camps’, but there are certainly camps where aid workers report that sanitation facilities and access to clean drinking water are woefully inadequate, leading to an unbearable stench in areas used as toilets, and the spread of gastrointestinal diseases resulting from consumption of contaminated water. Nor do we have to rely on these reports alone. A Vanni court ordered senior citizens to be released after it was found that several were dying of starvation and dehydration each day, so the existence of abysmal conditions in some camps has been proven in a court of law. And how could it be otherwise? The government was prepared for only 70,000 people to come out of LTTE-held territory, but there were four times that number!

However, I was criticising the government not for conditions in the camps but for denying these IDPs the right to freedom of movement. I was not arguing that they should be booted out willy-nilly, but that those who can move into homes outside the Vanni, or wish to search for missing relatives, or for any other reason want to move out of the camps permanently or temporarily, should be allowed to do so. That they are being denied this right is proved by the fact that one family which is seeking reunification outside the camps has had to approach the Supreme Court to argue that it is their fundamental right to do so, and it is still not clear that they will succeed.

According to Malinda, allowing families to move out of the camps would cause ‘chaos’. But this is not the first time we have had such massive displacement in a short period; the tsunami displaced many times more in a much shorter period, causing comparable tragedy and trauma. Did anyone at that time suggest that it would cause chaos if survivors were allowed to wander around looking for missing family members, or to stay with friends and relations? On the contrary, it would have caused greater chaos, not to mention outrage, if all the tsunami displaced were rounded up and detained in state-run camps! In this case too, it would make sense to reduce the burden on the government and the public by allowing IDPs to fend for themselves if they wish to do so. Clearly, the denial of that right has nothing to do with the chaos it would create.

The other reason cited by Malinda for detaining IDPs for an indefinite period is that they have to be screened to identify LTTE cadres, and that ‘It is better, given history, for the government to be cautious’. This is a dangerous road to travel. Why are the IDPs suspected of being LTTE cadres, despite the fact that escaping to government territory involved defying the LTTE’s orders? Because they are Tamils who lived in the LTTE-controlled area. From 1979 onwards, hundreds of Tamil youths were arrested, tortured, and in many cases killed, without any evidence against them whatsoever, simply because they had the same demographic profile as Tamil militants. From 1987 onwards, thousands of Sinhalese youths were massacred by the state without any evidence against them whatsoever, simply because they fitted the demographic profile of JVP members. Collective punishment of innocent people for crimes they have not committed is one step down a slippery slope that ends in a bloodbath.

I said that screening should be done rapidly and in a transparent manner. IDPs can be interviewed, and if there is no evidence that they are LTTE operatives, registered and given freedom of movement. Top and middle-level LTTE cadres (most of them have been killed anyway) should also be registered and shifted to other camps with the knowledge of their relations. The ICRC and UN should have access to both sets of camps. Low-level cadres and especially conscripts have more reason to hate the LTTE than to love it, and the government proposal that they should be pardoned is eminently sensible.

Does freedom for IDPs increase the danger that a brainwashed LTTE operative will blow up a bus, as Malinda fears? Quite the contrary. At the moment, the IDPs hate the LTTE so much that some of them have beaten LTTE cadres and delivered them up to the authorities. The LTTE’s top leadership and military capability have been destroyed, and the pro-LTTE diaspora is busy fighting over its huge financial assets. People don’t blow themselves up just like that: they do so with a purpose. So far, that purpose was to bring about Tamil Eelam, which today is a lost cause. But wait a few months, let resentment in the camps fester, and the pro-LTTE diaspora may well be able to recruit suicide bombers from the camps, especially since, as the International Center for Strategic Defense reports, corruption is rife among those running them, and a bribe of Rs 1-3 lakhs can secure anyone’s release. This report warns that ‘Although the structures and the mechanisms of the LTTE were fully crushed, massive IDP Centers will be an ideal place to re-group and re-organize if there is the will and the need. In other words, this is ideal breeding grounds for LTTE ideology.’ The best way to counter this threat is freedom for the IDPs, which would immediately disperse a large number as well as win hearts and minds, and their speedy resettlement back in their homes.

Malinda writes of me that ‘She reduces the war to a product of alleged discrimination against and persecution of minorities, the PTA and Emergency Regulations. No word of extremist Tamil nationalism, no word of terrorism here, strangely.’ He is referring to the sentence in my article where I say, ‘We would expect the government to avoid practices which led to the war, such as discrimination against and persecution of minorities, and to repeal the PTA and Emergency Regulations, which were used for the extrajudicial killing of thousands of Tamils as well as Sinhalese’. It should be clear I was talking about what various governments did to contribute to the war, not claiming there were no other contributors to it.

I have consistently condemned extremist Tamil nationalism and the LTTE’s acts of terrorism, as readers of my articles in the Island would know. Indeed, I am a critic of all varieties of Tamil nationalism. But it is worth retracing the steps leading to the war. Discriminatory measures, including the disenfranchisement of Hill-country Tamils, Sinhala Only, and standardisation, as well as anti-Tamil violence in 1958, preceded the formation of Tamil militant groups. And it took anti-Tamil pogroms in 1977 and 1981, the burning of the Jaffna library, the use of the PTA and Emergency Regulations to arrest, torture and kill Tamils, and the massacre of thousands of Tamils in July 1983, to bring Tamil militancy from the margins of Tamil society to centre-stage. Today, we are at a point where we can either correct the mistakes made since 1977, and ensure that there will be no war in future, or we can repeat the mistakes that led to the carnage of 1987-90 and the war that has just ended.

Neither Sinhala nor Tamil nationalists refer to the bloodbath during the JVP insurgency and government counter-insurgency, since it contradicts their contention that a Sinhala-Tamil conflict is the main contradiction in Sri Lanka. However, it confirms my own contention that the main contradiction in Sri Lanka is between democracy and totalitarianism. According to this perspective, Sinhalese Jayawardene and Premadasa and Tamil Prabakaran were on the same side: that of totalitarianism. I pointed to various danger signals that the present regime might be moving in the same direction. Malinda concedes that statements by certain high-ranking officials and politicians could indeed create that impression, but adds that ‘If “official policy” is best reflected by what the President says then I believe there is no reason to get worked up’. But policy is best reflected not by the President’s words but by his deeds; not by his promise in Mahinda Chintanaya to abolish the Executive Presidency but by whether he actually keeps his promise; not by his statement that there are no majority and minorities in Sri Lanka but by his ensuring equal rights to all citizens. That is why it is important to be alert. On that point, Malinda and I are in full agreement.

[Editors note: This rejoinder to Malinda and Lucien was published in The Sunday Island on 5th July 2009. As with Malinda's first response to Rohini's article, given that the Island's website has no mechanism to feature reader generated comments, this article is republished with the expectation of continued dialogue between the author, her interlocutors in traditional print media and from a wider online readership.]

Similar Posts:

• The IDP situation in Sri Lanka: Let’s keep things real and a response to Rohini Hensman
• Why are the Vanni civilians still being held hostage?
• Situation in Vakarai
• An eye-witness account of IDP camp conditions in Sri Lanka
• Exclusive video interview with Somawansa Amarasinghe, the Leader of JVP, in English

Bijayini Satpathy, for one of the world’s greatest living dancers, is disarmingly mischievous in person. And, as I have experienced with a few others closest to perfection in their chosen art, humble and approachable. She will readily admit to being quite mad and with a casual nonchalance say that she trains from dawn to dusk at Nrityagram. It is then you realise that this is no ordinary dancer, and Nrityagram no ordinary dance school.

This interview was conducted at the Chitrasena Kalayathanaya. The ambient noise in the video reflects the noise levels in which students rehearse and learn dance at the Kalayathanaya, given the location adjacent to one of Colombo’s busiest roads and intersections. Although distracting for a viewer of this video, a live performance at the Kalayathanaya is so captivating that it very quickly transports the audience into a parallel world, where the only sound is the music that simultaneously frames the dancer and allows her, and us, to break free from such mundane distractions as traffic and set construction.

What Orhan Pamuk is to literature, Bijayini is to dance. She is effortlessly captivating. Having seen her dance on a couple of occasions, I was delighted when I got the opportunity to speak with her at length on the art of dance, her sojourn in Sri Lanka, her take on our own dance traditions, her bond to the Chitrasena Kalayathanaya and, in general, her experiences as a dancer, life in Nrityagram and the nature of a relationship between the guru and the student.

UN Under-Secretary-General and Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, Dr. Radhika Coomaraswamy, said this of our own renowned Upekha,

“These were not dancers going through a routine and doing their steps. These were inspired artists. When I see Upekha dance even today, I see that genius:-. the love of music, bodies immersed in the rhythm, the confidant mastery of body movements, the commitment to excellence and a passion for their art form. When they danced everyone reveled in that moment of artistic perfection.”

I remembered Radhika’s words when I was talking with Bijayini and my mind flashed back to the first time I saw her dance with Surupa Sen, another virtuoso from Nrityagram, in a closed door performance for friends and family of the Chitrasena Kalayathanaya. It was rich fare, sublime and magical. In the tradition of our own Chitrasena, Vajira and Upekha, seeing Bijayini dance is to give pause to violence and hopelessness and see the best of us come alive.

Similar Posts:

• In conversation with the Chitrasena - Vajira Dance Foundation on theatre in Sri Lanka
• An appeal to support Kumbi Kathawa (Ant Story): A Dance Drama
• A brief glimpse of “Kumbi Kathawa” (Ant Story)
• Misguided cultural policing in Sri Lanka: Where’s the morality amongst politicians?
• Missing in Action - the sound girl …

Leaders of G8 nations are to set a target to cut greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050.

They will also call for any human-induced temperature rise to be held below 2 degrees Celsius.

News of the G8 plans came as ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair urged rich nations to hit short-term climate targets by ramping up existing clean technologies.

They should also paying poor countries to protect their forests, Mr Blair said.

What beauty in camps?

I sit in my favourite chair
listening to Beethoven’s last sonata,
slient breezes
in time.
to the music.
My world creates a sonata

The other shatters all possibility of one.

Guarded, malnourished;
the beauty of rescue: possible?
loudspeakers are silent.
Waiting for a pass, a nod,
family member to utter their name,
to go back home
to farm, toil, feed the earth
feel the breeze of their own
sonatas.

Beethoven calms me.
My children, near.
one dressed. Pretty.
Ready for her first ‘mixed’ party.
The smaller cuddles her father,
night air brings comfort.
Smells of food. Dinnertime.
Civilized.
Red wine.

Nourishment.
No death here.
just beauty
and dignity.

Part of the Writers Under Siege collection on Groundviews. For more information, click here.

Similar Posts:

• Liberation
• Belonging
• Equal Treatment
• Until the Guns are silent
• Forgetting, Mullaitivu

Located strategically in the Indian Ocean, Sri Lanka was a hub in the maritime silk and spice routes for millennia. It drew traders from the east and west for both business and pleasure. Notable among the attractions were spices, whose many aromas and flavours formed an integral part of the tropical paradise experience.

The traditional Lankan curry contained up to 13 spices and herbs. Most plants were not native – cardamom came from South India, cloves from Indonesia and chilli all the way from the Americas. Cinnamon was Sri Lanka’s unique contribution to this delightful mix. The origins didn’t really matter: the islanders knew just how to mix the native and the foreign to achieve legendary results.

As Sri Lanka embarks on national integration after three decades of highly divisive war, it is worth recalling these aspects of its heritage. For the war not only devastated our economy and blighted the prospects of a generation; it also nurtured high levels of insecurity, insularity and mutual suspicion. In recent years, democratic dissent has become ‘unpatriotic’. Everything foreign is suspect – especially if from the west.

Suddenly, the spice island is in danger of turning into a ‘bland’ nation with xenophobia the only condiment in use.

Connected but not engaged?
Paradoxically, Sri Lanka today is more closely linked to the rest of the world than ever before. Geography is still a strong part of our destiny: more than a fair share of shipping pass through our ports. Some vessels bring what we cannot produce on our own; others carry away our tea, rubber and other exports.

Sri Lanka also markets hospitality, dexterity and genius. In the wake of peace, the travel industry hopes to attract half a million tourists a year. One out of every 20 Lankans works overseas, remitting billions of dollars that keep the economy going. Partly fuelled by this Diaspora, thousands of voice calls and terabytes of data flow in and out of the island every day.

All this suggests that Lankans have found their feet in the incessantly chattering, moving and trading global family. But looks can be deceptive: many are still very uneasy in engaging the world.

Such apprehensions provide a fertile ground for conspiracy theorists, which the island has aplenty. They constantly warn of elaborate international plots to ‘undermine and destabilise’ poor little Sri Lanka. The usual suspects include the CIA, MI5, (Indian spy agency) RAW, multinational corporations and UN agencies involved in human rights or humanitarian work. The Vatican, IMF and the World Bank get honourable mentions. In true X-Files style, we are asked to Trust No One.

Such paranoia could be dismissed if not for their mass appeal. An alarming number of Lankans readily believe in these imaginary scenarios. Not just wars but elections are waged on these assertions. High levels of literacy and schooling make little difference. Most of our media outlets peddle and amplify them with no critical examination.

This is not how Lankans engaged the world in the past. For much of our 25 centuries of recorded history, we had open frontiers that welcomed traders, scholars, pilgrims, artistes, missionaries and others. This was the ‘ehi-passika‘ (come and see) formula in Buddhism, which made the rulers open minded and accommodating. Such transactions had their pros and cons, but on the whole, the island nation was richer for the free flow of genes, ideas and technologies. It was only in the last five centuries that the balance was lost due to European colonialism. That isn’t statistically very significant.

As with spices, ancient Lankans knew how to mix the home-grown with external elements. Indeed, the island’s fauna, flora and people would be radically different today if such influences and cross-fertilisation were somehow blocked out. Excepting the aboriginal Veddahs, now numbering a few hundred, all other races are immigrants who came from somewhere else. All religious faiths were also ‘imported’. Sri Lanka today is the product of endless assimilating and remixing over many centuries.

Those who advocate cultural hegemony should re-read their own history. For two thousand years, the spice island practised this advice eventually articulated by Mahatma Gandhi: “I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any.”

As we leave the war’s legacy behind, we need revive our intellectual curiosity and spirit of tolerance that once distinguished this land. We have to resume rigorous public debate on policies, choices, alternatives and trade-offs on the road to peace and prosperity. An inevitable part of this pluralism is dissent – which was brutally silenced during the last stages of the war.

Any justifications for suppressing dissent ended on the battlefields of Mullaitivu, northern Sri Lanka, in mid May 2009. We yearn to start breathing again. Will our state once again make itself open to scrutiny, critique and question by voters and tax payers? Can our media, civil society and intelligentsia now take up Martin Luther King, Jr.’s definition of dissent — “the right to protest for right” – and resume their suspended (and sorely missed) cacophony?

Throughout history, the spice island nurtured plurality without losing its identity or integrity. It withstood numerous invasions, colonialism and tsunamis. Sri Lanka is more resilient than many of its citizens think — and more vibrant and diverse than it appears at first glance. That’s the legacy of good geography and open frontiers.

Let genes, ideas and spices flow freely again! We have nothing to lose - except our temporary blandness.

Science writer Nalaka Gunawardene is still hopeful of mastering the art of Lankan cooking when he grows up. In the meantime, he keeps blogging at http://movingimages.wordpress.com/

A longer version of this essay appears in Himal Southasian magazine, July 2009 issue. 935 words

Similar Posts:

• Tiran Alles and the Media War
• Artistes of hypocrisy in Sri Lanka
• Discovered: A sunken island, an Indian Ocean Atlantis?
• Peace professionals and War professionals
• Falling from grace: On Sripathi’s demise and using terror against terror