Rajiva Writes to Lasantha

(May 12, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Last week the Peace Secretariat sent the following letter to the Sunday Leader as a reply to the article entitled 'Rajiva and Vaiko clash in Oslo' which appeared in the ‘Sunday Leader’ on May 4th. The reply has been published in the ‘Sunday Leader’ (May 11, 2008) but it is again reproduced here since it is important to note the sleight of hand employed by, not necessarily the ‘Leader’, but whoever served as its informant - particular given the manner in which such equations, of words and weaponry, are used by the LTTE to justify its extravagant violence. Image: Prof. Rajiva at recent peace conference in Oslo, Norway: Pic by Nadarajah Sethuruban

SCOPP/SG/1. 6th May 2008

The Editor
‘Sunday Leader’
Leader Publications (Pvt)Ltd.,
24, Katukurunduwatta Road
RATMALANA.

Dear Sir,

I write in response to the references to me in an article entitled ‘Rajiva and Vaiko clash in Oslo’ which appeared in the Sunday Leader of May 4th. It is claimed there, in connection with the recent Conference on ‘Peace and Reconciliation in South Asia’ that there was a ‘heated exchange of words’ between Mr Vaiko and me and that, ‘changing the whole mood of the summit’ I ‘said that those killed in air raids were actually supporters of the LTTE’.

Your informant has totally misrepresented the facts. As you will see from the text of the speech which is available on our website, dated 15th April, I was as always reasoned in my responses, and even tried to understand the bitterness felt by Sri Lankan Tamils abused in the eighties, though I noted that ‘when bitterness privileges terrorism, when it condones through silence the killing of moderate Tamils who had sought political compromises, when it degenerates into a game of atrocity snap, it needs to be dealt with firmly, albeit with kindness and even sympathy.’

With regard to civilian deaths, I dealt in particular with a major issue Mr Vaiko had raised, and pointed out that the characterization of what had occurred at Sencholai was quite wrong, and that the Sri Lankan military had attacked what on all evidence was a training camp. Pictures afterwards proved that the evidence had been correct, as did withdrawal of the initial claim that this was an orphanage. However I did point out the great care taken by the Sri Lankan government about the survivors, and the fact that the girls had been taken to Sencholai forcibly – ‘the centre was one to which young girls were taken forcibly, to be trained in the militarism that has now become endemic under LTTE domination.’

Later I pointed out that it was quite wrong to talk of heaps of civilian deaths due to bombing, because in 168 incidents of aerial bombing there had been only five in which there had even been allegations that civilians were killed.

We are deeply concerned about the deaths of civilians, and even about combatants for we know that many of them have been forced to fight through conscription. It is now common knowledge, as you can check from United Nations staff, that conscription is now extending to even second members of families in the Wanni, and that marriages after 2006 are being cancelled since it is deemed that such marriages were a fraud to escape conscription by the young.

Though collateral damage is always to be regretted, in particular when the poor civilians have been forced to act as human shields, comparatively speaking the Sri Lankan forces have committed less collateral damage than many other forces struggling against terrorism. You will note that in none of our statements do we glorify killing, as was sadly done by our so-called counterpart in Kilinochchi which put suicide squads on a pedestal. What we celebrate is restraint, as in our recent statement on the retaking of the Madhu Sanctuary, which was achieved without the battle for which weapons had been stockpiled in the premises by the LTTE. It is the comparatively good record of the Sri Lankan forces with regard to civilians that we congratulate them for, and feel obliged to publicize in view of the false propaganda that is so readily spread.

Finally, there was no question of my raising the temperature. As another of your columns puts it in a different context, ‘Wijesinha’s response seems like extreme unction, perhaps an indication of how to be dignified in the face of public crudity’. Indeed, partly as a result of the very reasoned approach of the Sri Lankan delegates, admirable speeches by Minister Arumugam Thondaman and Rev Brahmanawatte Seevali Nayaka Thero (who addressed the gathering in Tamil) and Rev. Maduluvave Sobitha Nayaka Thero, Mr Vaiko’s initial fury was moderated. By the end of the seminar he did not object to the manner in which the chairperson, Erika Mann, noted positive initiatives taken by the Sri Lankan government which should be encouraged.

It must be noted that we are always ready to engage in a dignified fashion, and deal in facts rather than generalizations, reasoned argument rather than emotional ranting. This week I was due to participate in an event in the House of Commons to be addressed by Sir Nigel Rodley as well as the Director of Human Rights Watch. Unfortunately the former cancelled but I was looking forward to a face to face discussion with the latter, who first raised the canard of indiscriminate attacks on civilians by Sri Lankan forces.

He has to date failed to reply to my detailed rebuttal, but now the meeting has been totally cancelled and once again there is no opportunity to deal with issues objectively. In that respect, we continue grateful to the organizers of the Seminar in Norway for providing an opportunity for open debate, and must note that Mr Vaiko himself in the end conformed to the principles of civility and engagement that the organizers had established.

Yours sincerely,

Prof Rajiva Wijesinha
Secretary General.
Secretariat for Co – ordinating the Peace Process
- Sri Lanka Guardian