South Asia Forum for Human Rights (SAFHR)

Monday, July 04, 2011

By Kusal Perera

Well, neighbourhood worries me a great deal, quite frankly. You have a situation in Sri Lanka. The decimation of the LTTE was something which is good. But the Tamil problem does not disappear with the defeat of the LTTE.

The Tamil population has legitimate grievances. They feel they have been reduced over the years to second-class citizens. And our emphasis has been to persuade the Sri Lankan government that we must move towards a new system of institutional reforms, where the Tamil people will have a feeling that they are equal citizens of Sri Lanka, and they can lead and live a life of dignity and self-respect. It is not easy because within Sri Lanka’s population, there are hotheads, Sinhala chauvinism is a reality. But we have to find a difficult balance because what happens in Sri Lanka has a domestic dimension also.”

That was the answer to the very first question out of a total of 49, fielded by Indian PM Manmohan Singh in his first media outing after seven months and his fourth in  seven years, held on Wednesday,  June 29 in Delhi. He accepts the problem of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, lies with hotheads and Sinhala chauvinism. What have these hotheads and Sinhala chauvinism, which is only diplomatically couthed “rabid racism” brought about in Sri Lanka? Is it only the “difficulty” in bringing about a reasonable and justifiable political solution?

The Rajapaksas have taken it beyond that of  ignoring and avoiding the “Tamil problem.” They are taking the whole society on a ride to militarisation, at very many levels with the economy tied to it as well.

April 15, 2011,

Allegations found credible by the Panel

The Panel’s determination of credible allegations reveals a very different version of the final stages of the war than that maintained to this day by the Government of Sri Lanka. The Government says it pursued a "humanitarian rescue operation" with a policy of "zero civilian casualties". In stark contrast, the Panel found credible allegations, which if proven, indicate that a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law were committed both by the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE, some of which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity. Indeed, the conduct of the war represented a grave assault on the entire regime of international law designed to protect individual dignity during both war and peace.

Specially, the Panel found credible allegations associated with the final stages of the war. Between September 2008 and 19 May 2009, the Sri Lanka Army advanced its military campaign into the Vanni using large-scale and widespread shelling causing large numbers of civilian deaths. This campaign constituted persecution of the population of the Vanni. Around 330,000 civilians were trapped into an ever decreasing area, fleeing the shelling but kept hostage by the LTTE. The Government sought to intimidate and silence the media and other critics of the war through a variety of threats and actions, including the use of white vans to abduct and to make people disappear.

The Government shelled on a large scale in three consecutive No Fire Zones, where it had encouraged the civilian population to concentrate, even after indicating that it would cease the use of heavy weapons. It shelled the United Nations hub, food distribution lines and near the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) ships that were coming to pick up the wounded and their relatives from the beaches. It shelled in spite of its knowledge of the impact, provided by its own intelligence systems and through notification by the United Nations, the ICRC and others. Most civilian casualties in the final phases of the war were caused by Government shelling.

In May 2009 Sri Lanka government declared military victory in the nearly three decades-long wars with Tamil Tiger rebels who were fighting for a separate homeland. It was one of the world's bloodiest and longest-running civil wars, in which more than 100,000 persons were killed and about half million persons were displaced.

During 2008-9, the last phase of the war, about 10,000 persons were killed and more than 300,000 were displaced. While the government claims that about 250,000 of the displaced persons have returned to their homes, national and international humanitarian agencies have reported that majority of the “returnees” are either staying with families and friends or camping in abandoned government offices, school buildings and railway stations as their homes were completely destroyed.

Allegations of War Crimes:
Human rights organisations, humanitarian agencies and the media have alleged that during the last two years of the war serious violations of abuse of human rights and war crimes were committed by both the warring parties – Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE. The UN and several other international organisations have called for independent inquiry into these allegations. The UN Secretary General has appointed an independent commission of experts to look into these allegations of war crimes.

However, the Government of Sri Lanka has refused any international inquiry in the allegations of war crimes. In response to the international call for an independent investigation, Sri Lanka government appointed Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission to hear evidence from army commanders, senior officials and members of the military. Several international human rights organisations have refused to appear before the government appointed commission on the ground that the commission fails to meet the criteria needed to contribute to lasting reconciliation or legal accountability for alleged war crimes.

by Izeth Hussain

According to one view Ban Ki-Moon had no business to appoint that UN Panel of Advisors as it did not have the sanction of the Security Council, the General Assembly, or any other UN body. According to another view he was well within his rights because the appointment of the Panel was an internal affair of the UN office, which was therefore something on which the UNSG could legitimately exercise his discretion. International opinion evidently favours the latter view while the SL Government has been most vehemently of the first view. The agreement therefore to allow the Panel to make representations to the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Committee is a most embarrassing volte-face. There could be two possible explanations, the first of which is that the government has thought it prudent in the national interest to give in to Western pressure. The other is that a quid pro quo understanding could be in the offing.

By Patricia Gossman

The attack on July 13 on a Hindu shantytown in Kashmir, in which 27 people were killed, has exposed the continuing fragility of prospects for peace in the region. Two months ago, after India and Pakistan appeared on the brink of war over Kashmir, a tentative pullback was reached. Pakistan’s leader General Musharraf promised to dismantle militant camps and "permanently" stop aiding militant organizations that have been staging attacks in Indian-controlled Kashmir. But both sides know that these efforts, even if undertaken in good faith, will not prevent all attacks. As India readily acknowledges, many militants originate in Indian-controlled Kashmir; they and many other Kashmiris are deeply alienated from India. Why so many Kashmiris have taken up arms against the Indian state has less to do with the disputed status of the territory than with the government of India’s policies toward the state.

Origins of the Dispute
When British India was partitioned in 1947, the rulers of some 500 "princely states" – which had nominal independence under the British—had to choose to join one of the newly independent states, India or Pakistan. For the most part, those whose territory fell within the borders of India or Pakistan joined that state. Kashmir, which straddles both nations at their northernmost border, was an anomaly. The Maharaja of Kashmir equivocated, apparently in the hope that Kashmir could remain independent. A pro-democracy movement in Kashmir led by Sheikh Abdullah, who opposed the Maharaja’s autocratic rule, favored joining India because its leaders felt that Kashmiri interests and its autonomy were best preserved in a secular state. On the eve of partition Sheikh Abdullah was jailed for dissent.

In the weeks after partition, Pakistani tribesmen, apparently accompanied by some Pakistani army regulars, invaded Kashmir, prompting a number of uprisings against the Maharaja in the western part of the state. The Maharaja sought India’s help in driving out the invaders. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru agreed, provided the Maharaja accede to India. On October 27, 1947, Maharaja Hari Singh agreed to sign the instrument of accession, and Sheikh Abdullah was released from jail to negotiate the terms.
As a condition of accession, the document stated that nothing in it would commit Kashmir to any future Constitution of India. Indian troops succeeded in halting the advance of the Pakistani forces to the western third of the state. Prime Minister Nehru asked the United Nations to intervene, and in January 1948 the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 39 (1948) establishing the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to investigate and mediate the dispute. In April 1948, the Security Council adopted Resolution 48, expanding UNCIP’s membership and mandate to include the use of observers as a way to halt the fighting. In July 1949 India and Pakistan signed the Karachi Agreement establishing the cease-fire line, known as the Line of Actual Control, to be supervised by the observers. ¹