Less visible undercurrents in Jaffna

There are different views expressed by the people in Jaffna, as befits a society that is plural and monolithic. There are some who support what the government is doing very strongly. On my return to Colombo I was informed that the position I had recently expressed in Jaffna was not accepted by some in the inter-religious group I had met, although at the meeting itself they had not contested me. Only a handful spoke.

by Jehan Perera

(May 18, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) While the criticism within Sri Lanka of the UN panel report gathered strength, a public protest against disappearances during the war took place in Trincomalee last week which was reported by the media. A group calling itself "We are Sri Lankans" organized a protest against the disappearances that took place in the east of the country during the last phase of the war. The demonstration was supported by the JVP, which ironically had itself been involved on two occasions in the past as both perpetrator and victim. In 1971 and again in 1988-89, tens of thousands of people disappeared or were killed. The fact that Sinhalese from the south were part of the protest may have emboldened the Tamil residents of the east to come out publicly in protest to demand that justice be done to them.

The focus on the last phase of the war has been particularly objectionable to the government and to the majority opinion in the country that is able to express itself without fear of reprisal on the issue of the UN panel report into alleged human rights violations in the last phase of the war. On the other hand, any public voice that does not utterly reject the UN panel report as biased and false runs the risk of being accused of anti-national sentiment and even of being part of an international conspiracy. The media reported that a university lecturer in the south of the country who had publicly spoken about the UN panel report in an objective manner had been subjected to various administrative harassments and also had a scurrilous leaflet circulated about him.

The UN panel report has given considerable space and weight to the deeds of the LTTE in the last phase of the war. It clearly shows how the conduct of the LTTE doomed a large population to destruction. However, the restriction in the mandate of the Expert Panel to the last phase of the war has permitted earlier atrocities perpetrated by the LTTE, and also by previous governments and the Indian Peace Keeping Force, to go unmentioned. So far those who encouraged and justified LTTE outrages, including the holding of over 300,000 hostages, have not had the searchlight turned to them. This is particularly infuriating to the present government which sees itself as being the sole target for international scrutiny as a consequence of the demise of the LTTE for all practical purposes.

Another opinion

The legitimacy of these arguments notwithstanding there is also another section of the people who appreciate the UN panel report despite its inadequacies. When I was in Jaffna last week I met with many people who expressed their satisfaction that what had happened in the course of the last phase of the war is now known throughout the world. Until the publication of the report they had felt frustrated in the face of the government’s persistent denial that large numbers of civilians had been killed or injured, a denial that they feared to challenge at the risk of disappearing themselves. Despite the end of the war, there is an undercurrent of dejection and sense of powerlessness that exists in Jaffna that the bustling commercial life of the city may conceal from the casual visitor.

During my stay in Jaffna I met with members of an inter-religious group. As religion is generally accorded a respected place in Sri Lankan society people feel more secure to meet and discuss public issues in the company of their religious leaders. Discussing the UN panel report I stated my position as a member of a peace building organization with a multi ethnic and multi religious membership, that punishment was not the goal especially if it was by external powers, and that reconciliation was the goal through internal change in society. However, my view was challenged by two key questions posed, the first of which was why not punishment for those who had caused so much of suffering, and why not international intervention when local processes had failed so abjectly in the past.

There are different views expressed by the people in Jaffna, as befits a society that is plural and monolithic. There are some who support what the government is doing very strongly. On my return to Colombo I was informed that the position I had recently expressed in Jaffna was not accepted by some in the inter-religious group I had met, although at the meeting itself they had not contested me. Only a handful spoke. Perhaps they were mindful of the fate of some other inter-religious leaders who had expressed themselves forthrightly at another meeting with very high level religious dignitaries from the south. Armed men had accosted some of those religious leaders from the north at night and flung cow dung and other excreta at them. The news media had reported that only one had suffered that fate, but on my visit to Jaffna I was informed that in actual fact there had been three victims, but two had not wished the attack against them to be made public.

Unspoken reality

During the Vesak week there will be many travelers to Jaffna, most of them pilgrims who will visit the sacred site of Nagadeepa. During the past two years Jaffna’s hospitality industry had improved tremendously to cope with the influx of tourists, almost all from the south of the country. But beneath the visible signs of economic progress in Jaffna and the bustle of its streets there is a continuing sense of grievance within its people which is seldom voiced in public. The root cause is the old cause that gave raise to political unrest, to separatism and to rebellion. This is the reality that decisions that affect the lives of the people in the north are taken by people from outside the north, Sinhalese governance of a territory inhabited predominantly by Tamils.

The Sri Lankan military is currently the instrument of this Sinhalese governance, and is a focus of resentment. Unlike in Trincomalee, where public protests can take place without the permission of the military, in Jaffna they cannot. This is an unacceptable restriction of the freedom of association and the freedom of expression. One priest contradicted the opinion expressed at the meeting I had with the inter-religious gathering, and said that almost all his parishioners had no interest in the UN panel report being used as an instrument of punishment. But he explained their sentiment with an example. He said how some of the Governor’s men had come to his orphanage and demanded to know why the buildings were not repaired, and why a library had not been established. They had instructed him to do so, and he felt he had to comply, although his greater challenge was to find enough money to feed the children and send them to schools.

Even as the improved conduct of the military in their midst is noted, and the efficiency of former Jaffna army commander and now Governor of the Northern Province, retired General Chandrasiri is appreciated, this is not what the people of the north want two years after the end of the war. They do not want military governance even if it is efficient and helpful. Instead they want to be governed by the people they have elected and who are from their own society, which is what democracy is about and what people anywhere in Sri Lanka would want for themselves. At present people feel they cannot do anything without getting military permission or involving them. There is a need to reduce the role and presence of military and restore civilian administration. The attitude of total control and imposition of the war victor’s decisions on the people of the north, erodes President Mahinda Rajapaka’s claim of liberation obtained through a humanitarian operation.