On the folly of ‘underworldism’ in tackling the underworld

By Malinda Seneviratne

(August 09, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The LTTE has been crushed. I have argued for years that it should be eliminated and moreover that it can be eliminated. I have also argued that the elimination of the LTTE will not transform Sri Lanka into a perfect nation, that there are other serious issues that need to be addressed. I have argued that we don’t have the institutional structures necessary to combat bribery and corruption, abuse of power, to obtain transparency, accountability and other things that are part and parcel of good governance and a functioning democracy. I have argued that conceding territory or devolving power to the LTTE would amount to rewarding terrorism, pointing out that this would mean that the inability to crush the underworld warrants granting autonomous powers and territory to these unsavoury elements.

It appears that the Government is as serious about crushing the underworld as it was in eliminating the LTTE. The past few weeks have seen key underworld figures being ‘taken out’. There hasn’t been much open cheering of course but neither has there been much by way of objection. Mangala Samaraweera has been the exception.

We all want the underworld eliminated and given the horrendous crimes perpetrated by these people, few would lament their passing or take issue with the ‘how’ of their passing. And yet, we must object, I believe.

These killings are accompanied by a familiar and patterned script. There is a shoot out. Or attempt at evading arrest. Hand grenades are thrown at police officers pursuing the criminal. There is retaliatory fire. There is firing in self-defence. Justifiable homicide, the court would record at some point, I suppose. It is just too easy. People look the other way perhaps because these things can easily be thrust into a file called ‘has to be done’. In other words, the general public may not necessarily believe the script but will go along with it because a social need (elimination of the underworld) is served.

Mangala Samaraweera is correct, though. Even if a social need is served, it has to be served in ways that are not at odds with the system of justice. The parable of the Pied Piper of Hamlin comes to mind; there is cheering when an instrument is employed to fulfill the needs of the village and there is lamenting when that same instrument is used to cause harm. The problem lies in the instrument used. Precedence is a serious thing and therefore sanctioning a particular instrument or a course of action must always be preceded by careful thought.

In the late eighties, the country was in the throes of an insurrection. It was nothing like the war that ended recently. Summary execution was the order of the day. Everyone looked the other way when proxy arrests, torture and cold-blooded murder was perpetrated by state agencies and/or vigilante groups closely allied with the then Government. The law was silent. There were no human rights organizations taking the issue up with the then Secretary General of the United Nations. In fact many of today’s human rights champions were either members of the death squads or approved of them. The purpose - that of eliminating a fascist organization - was served. Does this justify the method used? Did that process not result in numbing society to things like abduction, torture and murder? Is that a healthy state of affairs?

We lived through a time of white van abductions. I actually witnessed one such abduction. It was a shocking experience. It happened at the Kirulapona-Base Line traffic lights. I was in a car that slowed at the junction for the red light. The car in front, red in colour, was parked at an awkward angle with a white van blocking its path. It happened in a matter of seconds. About five or six men jumped out of the van, broke open a window, opened the door and pulled out the driver. He was bundled into the van which did a quick U-turn and left. It was later reported that the victim was the brother-in-law of a senior police officer. The victim was not killed.

The moment we saw these men jump out of the van, I and my friend who was driving, got out of our car, instinctively. We were waved off by the abductors: ‘oyala yanna’. We didn’t, but didn’t have to wait long because it was all done in a matter of 30 seconds.

As we got into the vehicle, my friend said ‘int eken’ (basically, ‘intelligence operatives’). I asked him how he knew. He had told the abductors that he was an army officer and they had given the ‘int eken’ response. I was in shock and I told my friend that this was wrong. He asked me why? I said that the victim must have a family and that I am thinking about what’s going through his mind right now. My friend said in Sinhala, ‘Malinda Aiya we are fighting the world’s most ruthless terrorist organizations. These people are not killed, they are pumped for information about LTTE cells, operatives and operations. These are not random abductions, but targeted ones.’

I contended that there is a difference between killing someone in the middle of a gun fight and in abducting an unarmed citizen outside of legal procedure. His response: ‘We could do that but given the realities of the legal process, it is unlikely that the necessary information will be obtained; and even if it was, it would be too late to save hundred of lives lost in two or three suicide attacks. What would you tell the families of those victims?’ Those were different times and I didn’t have a clear refutation to offer.

These are different times too. The threat is different and therefore the muddying up of ‘propriety’ is harder to justify, if indeed it could be justified at all, under any circumstances.

Extra-judicial killings should draw objection from the public. Extra-judicial killings, regardless of the social good they may produce, must not go uncommented. The Government is responsible for law and order and should recognize that infringing the law in order to maintain the law is a perversion of the law and unacceptable.

When such killings become ‘ok’, we open the door for any number of self-styled social cleansers to dispense justice at his/her pleasure. That is a recipe for anarchy. We may eliminate the underworld but in the process create the conditions for an anything-goes state of affairs which in the long run would undermine the rule of law, compromise democracy and nurture despotism. In my humble opinion, I have a one word conclusion about this particular method of dealing with underworld criminality: wrong.

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer who can be reached at malinsene@gmail.com.

-Sri Lanka Guardian