Of whom shall we speak?

For every day they die among us

By Shanie
Courtesy: The Island

(February 20, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) "When there are so many we have to mourn, when grief has been made so public; and exposed
to the critique of a whole epoch
the frailty of our conscience and anguish.
Of whom shall we speak? For every day they die
among us, those who were doing us some good,
who knew it was never enough but
hoped to improve a little by living."

As this column is being written, it is twenty years to the day when Richard de Zoysa, a young playwright and human rights activist, was abducted from his home in Rajagiriya, despite pleas from his mother with whom he lived. His bullet ridden body was found on the beach at Moratuwa the next day. It is believed that his abductors were the so-called guardians of the law, who formed a death squad acting under instructions of the then defence establishment, who no doubt thought this extra-judicial killing of a critic would please the President of that time. The case brought against some Police officers in connection with de Zoysa killing was, not unexpectedly, collapsed because the evidence presented by the prosecution was contradictory and could not be sustained.

Many of those suspected of having been responsible for de Zoysa’s abduction and killing themselves later died a violent death, as also his friend ‘Taraki’ Sivaram, who had the unpleasant task of identifying de Zoysa’s dead body. But the culture of impunity enjoyed by the killers of de Zoysa, Sivaram and hundreds of other journalists, political activists and dissidents continues. Politicians who protest at extra-judicial violence when in opposition seem to have no qualms about condoning or providing immunity to goon squads and death squads when in power. This has been so over the last two decades and seems likely to go on. That is why the opening two verses from W H Auden’s poem in memory of Sigmund Freud, quoted above, has so much meaning for us today. Chandana Sirimalwatte and Sarath Fonseka were only the more prominent of those who were arrested without any charges brought against them in terms of the law of our land. Sirimalwatte has been freed on a Court order; the legitimacy of Fonseka’s arrest and detention is being challenged under a fundamental rights petition but Ekneliyagoda, unlike Richard de Zoysa whose dead body was found the next day, has simply disappeared without trace for over four weeks. And who will speak for the scores of others who have also been abducted or disappeared, who will speak for the grief and anguish of their wives, mothers and children. Does the frailty of our conscience prevent us from voicing our concerns for all such among us?

The role of Civil Society

Sadly, not many of us seem concerned about the right to life and liberty of others. It is not only politicians who are selective in their opposition to injustice. As the politicians become defenders of human rights when in the opposition and perpetrators of violence and injustice whilst in power, many of us (including the media) are also selective in our opposition to injustice; ethnicity, party politics and class interests have defined our attitude to injustice. Even religious leaders, who should be taking the lead in promoting ethical and moral values in society, have, with a few notable exceptions, remained largely silent in the face of repression. It is good that leaders of all religions have now spoken out against the unjust treatment being meted out to Sarath Fonseka. But one hopes that the same sense of outrage will be expressed when persons other than former Army Commanders are subject to similar repression.

The University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna) and the Civil Rights Movement of Sri Lanka have been two civil society organizations that have consistently over the years taken a stand, much to the chagrin of politicians and warlords in power, against repression and injustice. The UTHR was formed in the late eighties after the emergence of LTTE’s fascism in the North and the excesses of the Indian peace-keeping forces. Despite losing one of their leading founder-members Rajani Thiranagama, less than a year before the killing of Richard de Zoysa, to an LTTE gunman, the UTHR have courageously exposed terrorism by all actors in our ethnic conflict. They have seen their work as creating space for the people to fight injustice. For those who wish to clone the LTTE’s methods of terror, what the UTHR wrote on the fifteenth anniversary of Thiranagama’s killing is relevant to us today, even after the demise of the LTTE leader: "Where a people has even marginal democratic choice to change its rulers or even the way they act, prediction, especially long term, is hazardous. But when the leader is utterly intolerant of allowing the people any choice, presides over material and social catastrophe, and a disappearing and increasingly suffocated population, his prospects are trivially predictable."

The Civil Rights Movement was formed in the in the early seventies in similar circumstances in the south – after the failed insurgency of 1971 and the repression that followed. Over the years, the CRM has, like the UTHR, consistently protested violations of human rights and urged an adherence to certain standards of political conduct. Emergency regulations had been enacted in March 1971 when intelligence reports warned of the impending insurgency. In December of the same year, the CRM wrote to the then Prime Minister Mrs Sirimavo Bandaranaike urging a relaxation of the stringent clauses of the emergency regulations. They warned of the grave dangers to which any government is exposed when it prolongs such powers unduly. "From the point of view of persons in authority, emergency powers may come to appear a convenient, speedy and efficient instrument in comparison with the uncertain and dilatory processes of democratic government. In these circumstances, emergency rule can be a dangerous addiction which, if persisted in, may undermine democratic institutions. "

The misuse of emergency powers

The CRM’s fear of emergency powers becoming an addiction and being used for purposes other than for which they were enacted, was realised in a case they took up twenty months later. At 6.30 am one day, three CID officers had called on Mrs N at her home and told her that there had been a complaint against her and her daughters that they had threatened the life of her brother-in-law, who was a politically influential Chairperson of a State Corporation. Mrs N protested her innocence and said that there had been displeasure between the brother-in-law’s family and hers but neither she nor her daughters had made any threats against him. After a search of the house, she and her children were nevertheless taken to the fourth floor of the Police Headquarters where the CID officer spoke to her in a threatening manner. She was told that the her brother-in-law was an influential person and that she and her children could be detained up to 14 days and that an adverse police report could result in her younger daughter having to leave Law College where she was then a student. In the meantime, the husband who was away from home, had also arrived at the fourth floor. After eight hours detention on the fourth floor, the family were finally released to go home. The CRM wrote to the then IGP raising several questions regarding this arbitrary arrest and the ordeal faced by an innocent family but received no reply.

That was nearly forty years ago. Police methods have not changed much over these years. On the contrary, the politicisation of the Police is perhaps worse than ever. During the last Presidential election, there were reports of senior Police officers canvassing for one candidate and reports of officers being penalised for not doing politics. Judicial officers have on many recent occasions rapped the Police for not pursuing investigations or for being partisan either on account of political pressure or to please politicians in power. It is true to say that the image of the Police for impartiality and diligence in the performance of their law-enforcement functions is today a negative one.

But all is not lost. There still are professional Police personnel who take pride in their uniform. It is our duty to support them as they seek to create a new image for the Police. We need to speak up for them while condemning those who bring disrespect to the service by their servility to the politicians in power. As Martin Luther King said: "We shall repent in this generation not so much for evil deeds of wicked people but for the appalling silence of the good people."