Connect with us

Features

Proposed Penal Code amendment and threat of promotion of sexual abuse of children – II

Published

on

by Kalyananda Tiranagama
Executive Director
Lawyers for Human Rights and Development
(First part of this article appeared in The Island of 09 June 2023)

The election of members for the next Human Rights Council was due to be held in May 2008. Sri Lanka was seeking re-election to the Council. A group of foreign-funded, pro-LTTE, anti-national NGOs and LGBTQ groups commenced, months before the elections, making preparations to carry on a sinister campaign to prevent Sri Lanka’s re-election to the Council. UN Human Rights Council was due to review Sri Lanka’s human rights situation in May 2008.

This review of Sri Lanka’s human rights situation was done on the basis of reports presented by the Government of Sri Lanka, UN representatives and national and international human rights NGOs. January 14, 2008 was the deadline for NGOs to send their reports to the Council. As the first step, these foreign-funded NGOs made an appeal to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, to extend the deadline for submission of NGO report till February 8, 2008. They conducted a series of meetings and prepared a report titled Joint Civil Society Report for Universal Periodic Review of Sri Lanka – May 2008 and presented it to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the name of 39 organizations in Sri Lanka.

This Report had deliberately ignored the violations of human rights committed by the LTTE, including the forcible conscription of children, stating that it had focused on the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) as it was a member of the Human Rights Council and subject to the Universal Periodic Review process and it stated that the human rights situation in Sri Lanka had deteriorated since the country became a member of the Human Rights Council in 2006.

This Report was full of lies and distortions intended to tarnish the image of the country. Some of the blatant lies, fabrications and distortions mentioned in this Joint Civil Society Report are mentioned below:

Blatant Lies ·

The establishment of semi-legal vigilante units (so-called Civil Defence Units) terrorizes the civilian population throughout the country.

· What a blatant lie this statement is! Civil Defence Force consisting of Gramarakshakas was established to protect the villages and the people in the North and the East in the villages which were vulnerable to terrorist attacks. They were not semi-legal vigilante units. Vigilante groups like Black Cats and Yellow Cats operated during the UNP Rule, from 1988 – 1991. Civil Defence Force was a force officially created by the Government of Sri Lanka and led by Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera, former Deputy Chief of the Sri Lanka Navy. Where have they terrorized civilian population? Can these NGOs cite a single incident where the Civil Defence Units have terrorized civilian population?

· Torture and cruel and inhuman treatment is endemic across police stations and detention centres.

· This statement was also highly exaggerated and distorted. There was no doubt that incidents of torture were still reported against some Police Officers and there were complaints of assaults and harassment by the Police. But could one say that torture and cruel and inhuman treatment was endemic across police stations and detention centres in Sri Lanka at that time? About three decades back – during the period from 1989 – 1991 – there was a time when torture was endemic across police stations. The situation had improved much since then.

· In 1994 Torture Act was enacted making torture a criminal offence punishable with a mandatory jail sentence of seven years. In 2000 a special unit was established in the Attorney General’s Department to prosecute perpetrators of torture and since then a large number of Police Officers have been indicted in the High Courts in different areas in the country for torture and some of them were convicted and sent to jail. The Attorney General did not appear for the Police or Army Officers in Fundamental Rights Applications before the Supreme Court where there were allegations of torture. The Supreme Court has continuously taken a very serious view of torture and ordered the State and the individual police officers who were found to be responsible for torture to pay compensation to victims. The policy of zero tolerance of torture, introduced by Dr. Radhika Coomaraswamy as the Chairperson of Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRC), was continuously being followed by the HRC. The number of complaints of torture coming before the Supreme Court and the HRC had gradually decreased over the years.

· Flagrant violations of International humanitarian law including targeting of civilians, attacks on places of worship, hospitals and schools, and forced resettlement of IDPs.

· This statement was also a blatant lie. This is a Report submitted in February 2008, not after the end of the war in May, 2009. Could they cite a single incident where the GOSL has targeted civilians? They could not. There was not a single incident where the security forces have targeted civilians.

· Were there any incidents where the security forces had attacked places of worship, hospitals and schools? No. There wasn’t any. This statement is also a deliberate lie.

· There were more than a dozen incidents where the LTTE terrorists had attacked civilian targets, killing hundreds of helpless children, women and men and injuring thousands of people. LTTE had attacked several Catholic Churches in Mannar and killed a Hindu priest at Batticaloa and a Buddhist monk at Trincomalee during that period. They used Vakarai Hospital as its base for attacking security forces. When this Report talked of “targeting of civilians, attacks on places of worship, hospitals and schools” without naming the real perpetrator of these crimes – the LTTE – it has made a subtle attempt to put all these crimes committed by the LTTE to the account of the Government of Sri Lanka.

· The Report alleged that there was forced resettlement of IDPs. It is no secret that several NGOs, INGOs and UN Agencies operating in the East at that time tried to obstruct the resettlement of displaced people. They tried to dissuade people from leaving their IDP camps. They wished the IDPs to remain in IDP camps undergoing all sorts of difficulties so that they could continue with their welfare work in IDP camps and carry on their international campaign against Sri Lanka clamouring about displacement of hundreds of thousands of people by war, comparing Sri Lanka’s situation with that of Somalia.

· Women on the plantations also face forced sterilization, promoted in some cases by the management.

· This was also a diabolical lie. There was no forced sterilisation of women anywhere in the country. There had never been. There were two powerful political parties and trade unions looking after the interests of plantation workers in Sri Lanka – the Ceylon Workers’ Congress, led by Mr. Arumugam Thondamon, and the Up-Country People’s Front, led by Mr. P. Chandrasekeran. There were a large number of NGOs working among the plantation workers. There was a Plantation Trust. If there was any attempt at forced sterilization of plantation women, these organizations would not have remained silent.

· This was a sinister attempt made by these NGOs that drafted this Report to tarnish the image of the country and the government of Sri Lanka by spreading the lie that a repressive Sinhala government was forcibly sterilizing Tamil women in the plantation areas, in violation of their human rights and committing genocide.

· Acts of violence against women are growing, as are restrictions on women’s freedom of choice on a range of issues, ranging from form of dress and choice of marriage partner.

· This statement that ‘Acts of violence against women are growing’ was also contrary to facts. Domestic violence is a problem affecting not only our society, but all societies including the West. After a long consultation process with women’s organizations in the country, the Government enacted Domestic Violence Act in 2003 to deal with the problem of domestic violence. Any woman or child affected by domestic violence could obtain a protection order on application to a Magistrate’s Court. The Ministry of Child Development and Women’s Empowerment had taken a special interest in the implementation of the Domestic Violence Act. There were several organizations like the Legal Aid Commission and the Women in Need (WIN) providing counselling and legal support services to women and children affected by domestic violence. In 36 Police Divisions, there were separate Women and Children Units, manned by women Police Officers, with special training to handle cases of violence against women and children.

· Were there any restrictions on women’s freedom of choice of form of dress or choice of marriage partner in Sri Lanka, as claimed by these NGOs? Certainly not. It was a diabolical attempt made to give a gloomy picture of Sri Lanka, to depict Sri Lanka as a country like Afghanistan under a fundamentalist rule.

· LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) individuals are denied access to health services, education and employment and the ability to participate in social and public life. Targeting and persecution of LGBT persons have led to several individuals leaving the country to seek asylum elsewhere.

· Was there an iota of truth in this statement? Were Lesbians and Gays denied access to health services in hospitals in Sri Lanka? Were they denied admission to hospitals, government or private, when they fall sick? Were they or their children denied admission to schools, universities or other institutions of higher education, due to the fact that they are lesbians or gays? Were they denied employment? Was there a requirement, legal or otherwise, to disclose whether a person is a homosexual? Were there any restrictions on LGBT persons’ participation in social and public life? Don’t they have voting rights? Were they not allowed to contest elections? It is a well-known fact that a number of leading politicians in this country were/are homo-sexuals or persons who maintained homo-sexual relationships.

· Since the introduction of the Penal Code by the British rulers in 1863, homo-sexual conduct remained a criminal offence in Sri Lanka. Till 1995 only gay relationships or homo-sexual conduct between men was an offence. When the Penal Code was amended in 1995, ensuring gender equality, lesbian relationship was also made a criminal offence. Whether homo-sexual conduct is criminalized or not, Asian culture considers homo-sexuality as a deviation of the normal human sexual conduct.

· As was claimed in this Report, there was no targeting and persecution of LGBT persons in Sri Lanka. No police officer was going to peep into their bedrooms. Only thing they could not promote, openly display or exhibit their conduct. There was no reason for them to leave Sri Lanka and seek asylum elsewhere unless they wished to contract same sex marriages, which they could not do in Sri Lanka.

· Equal Ground, an NGO campaigning for recognition of LGBT rights and decriminalization of homo-sexuality, was also among the NGOs involved in this campaign.

Any person who is conversant with the situation of this country knows that most of these assertions were blatant lies, half-truths, distortions and fabrications concocted by some of the leaders of these foreign funded NGOs who were hell-bent on serving the agendas of their foreign masters of getting this country opened for foreign intervention.

As the next step of their anti-Sri Lanka campaign, in April 2008, these NGOs had addressed a letter, containing packs of lies and fabrications, to the Member States of the UN General Assembly seeking their support to prevent the re-election of Sri Lanka to the Human Rights Council. In this letter, these NGOs have stated:

“We, the undersigned civil society organizations are gravely concerned by the widening human rights crisis and growing culture of impunity that cripples our country….

” … It is with deep sadness and regret that we have now decided to make this appeal to the members of the United Nations General Assembly to oppose the re-election of Sri Lanka to the Council in 2008…. During Sri Lanka’s two years tenure in the UN Human Rights Council, the human rights situation has worsened. The Government’s unwillingness to take effective measures to address and prevent violations has made clear its inability to fulfill its pledges….

“We appeal to you to consider withholding support for Sri Lanka’s re-election this year. By doing so, your government will send a strong message to the Government of Sri Lanka that it must reform its practices if it wants to continue as an equal partner in international institutions such as the UN ….

“To re-elect Sri Lanka to the Human Rights Council in the present circumstances would amount to support for the undemocratic practices that have become part of our everyday lives. Your rejection of Sri Lanka’s bid for re-election to the Human Rights Council will reaffirm the faith that Sri Lanka civil society has placed in the international community, and could act as a powerful impetus for reforms in the country.” A Sinhala translation of this letter appeared in the Ravaya newspaper of 18. 05. 2008.



Features

Combining local resources,traditional knowledge and science to build a food-secure Sri Lanka

Published

on

World Food Day 2026: Innovating today for a better food future

by Dr. Kaushalya Wijayasekara

What will be on the Sri Lankan dinner table ten years from now? Will our children be able to get nutritious food at a price their families can afford? Will farmers be able to grow enough despite changing weather and rising costs? And how much of the food we produce will actually reach the consumer, instead of being lost or wasted along the way?

These questions can’t wait. A farmer faces unpredictable weather. A family faces rising food costs. Fruit goes unsold after a good harvest. Some children do not get enough nutrition. The future of food is tied to the future of Sri Lanka itself.

World Food Day 2026 is a chance to look beyond the immediate problems and ask whether we can build a food system that feeds our people well, gives farmers better opportunities, protects the environment and makes better use of what we already have. The answer can be yes, but we will have to think differently.

We are not starting from zero. Sri Lanka has diverse crops, fisheries, traditional food knowledge, indigenous varieties, research institutions, universities and a young generation able to create new solutions. What we need is to bring these together and act. Producing more will not secure our food future on its own. It will depend on how intelligently we produce, process, preserve, distribute and consume food.

Making more of what we already have

Innovation does not always mean inventing something new. Often it means finding better uses for the resources we have.

Sri Lanka grows traditional rice varieties, kurakkan, green gram, cowpea, jackfruit, breadfruit, cassava, sweet potato, coconut and palmyrah. All of them have great potential for modern, nutritious, value-added foods. Jackfruit and breadfruit can be made into flour and other convenient products. Traditional rice varieties can go into new foods that suit changing consumer needs. Palmyrah, with its strong cultural heritage, can create new income through better processing, packaging, quality assurance and market development.

The aim is to connect our traditional food knowledge with modern consumer needs and technology, while keeping our food heritage.

Stop wasting the food we produce

Reducing food loss and waste should be a major priority. Seasonal fruits such as mango, banana, papaya and pineapple can be lost in large quantities when production exceeds demand or when storage, transport and processing facilities are inadequate. With suitable technology, these fruits can become dried products, pulps, powders, beverages and other shelf-stable foods.

Agricultural and fisheries by-products are resources too. They could be turned into food ingredients, animal feed, bio-based products and other useful materials, which would move us toward a more circular food economy.

Technology alone is not enough. We need stronger local processing facilities, cold storage, efficient transport, collection centres and market information systems, especially close to where food is produced. Cutting food loss raises the value of what our farmers and fishers already produce.

Nutrition and food safety come first

Food security means more than having enough food. People also need food that is safe and nutritious.

Sri Lanka can develop affordable, nutritious foods from local pulses, grains, vegetables, fruits and fish. Children and other vulnerable groups should get particular attention. Schoolchildren in particular deserve a focus: safe, nutritious, locally sourced products for school feeding programs would support child nutrition, local farmers and domestic food industries at the same time.

Food safety must stay at the centre of food innovation. Good hygiene, quality control, laboratory testing, traceability and appropriate food safety systems are what make new products safe as well as attractive and nutritious.

A food system that can cope with climate change

Climate change is already affecting agricultural production, water availability, crop yields and food prices. We need food systems that can handle changing conditions. That means climate-resilient crops, efficient water use, soil and water conservation, better storage and resource-efficient food processing.

Traditional knowledge matters here. Generations of Sri Lankan farmers have developed practices suited to local climates and ecosystems. Combining that experience with modern science can give us solutions that fit local conditions and are sustainable. Technology alone will not build the future of food. Science, experience and local knowledge together can.

Give young people a bigger role

Sri Lanka’s universities have an important part to play in shaping our food future. Young people should be encouraged to identify real problems in the food system and work on practical solutions in areas such as food waste, sustainable packaging, nutrition, food safety, modernising traditional foods and digital technologies.

A good research project should not always end as a research paper. Where appropriate, research should be supported to move on to products, technologies, enterprises and community solutions. That needs stronger partnerships between universities and industry, along with mentoring, research funding, business support and market connections. If young researchers and entrepreneurs can turn their ideas into viable food innovations, both consumers and producers will benefit.

A pathway designed for Sri Lanka

We do not need to copy food-system models from other countries. We can build a pathway that suits our own resources, culture and needs. It would bring together local resources, traditional knowledge, scientific research, appropriate technology and entrepreneurship, with farmers, fishers, universities, research institutions, food industries, entrepreneurs and policymakers working side by side.

The goal goes beyond selling raw materials. We need to create more value, reduce waste, improve nutrition, generate jobs and strengthen rural livelihoods. This matters especially for small and medium-scale food enterprises, which can drive local economic development when they get the right technical, financial and market support.

The choices we make today

The food future will not create itself. It will be shaped by what we grow, what we research, what we process, what we consume and what we choose not to waste.

So, the question for World Food Day 2026 is this: what can we do today so that every Sri Lankan has safe, nutritious, affordable and sustainable food tomorrow?

The answers are already around us, in our farms, fisheries, food businesses, universities, laboratories and communities. We have the resources, the traditional knowledge, the scientific expertise and talented young people. What we need now is to connect them and act.

A better food future begins with the choices we make today.

Dr. Kaushalya Wijayasekara

Senior Lecturer, Department of Biosystems Technology, Faculty of Technology, University of Ruhuna

Continue Reading

Features

20th Anniversary of Digampathana blast – the day Sri Lanka Navy cried

Published

on

Aftermath of the terror attack

By Admiral Ravindra C Wijegunaratne
WV, RWP and Bar, RSP, VSV, USP, NI (M) (Pakistan), ndc, psn, Bsc
(Hons) (War Studies) (Karachi) MPhil (Madras)
Former Navy Commander and Former Chief of Defence Staff
Former Chairman, Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd
Former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation
Former High Commissioner to Pakistan

The Digampathana suicide truck attack on 16th October 2006 remains the deadliest single strike in Sri Lanka Navy history, leaving scars that time cannot erase.

It was a seemingly ordinary Monday morning on 16 October 2006, but the calm of that day would soon be shattered in a way none of us could have imagined. As the Commandant of the Naval and Maritime Academy and Flag Officer Commanding Naval Fleet at Trincomalee, I was aware that a number of my cadets were travelling that morning, part of a convoy of fifteen buses carrying naval personnel from Trincomalee, Colombo, and other bases, heading toward Dambulla to rendezvous with another group. The convoy also included trucks and escort vehicles, a routine movement planned and coordinated with the army to ensure the roads were clear. The morning started quietly. Some personnel greeted friends, handed over their weapons, or strolled to a nearby tea shop. It all seemed so ordinary—too ordinary for what would come next.

Sri Lanka Navy sunk LTTE Ships carrying arms, ammunition and warlike materials thousand miles away from Sri Lanka in Indian Ocean in September and October 2007.

By late morning, both convoys had reached the small ground at Digampathana, near the Sigiriya junction, and personnel mingled briefly, unaware that a carefully orchestrated act of terror was waiting. Then, suddenly, an empty half-truck veered directly into the convoy. It exploded with a ferocity I can still recall as if it were yesterday. Nuts, bolts, and high explosives tore through the air. Pandemonium erupted instantly. I later learned that 107 of our naval personnel were killed on the spot and another 153 critically injured. The scene was indescribable—bodies scattered, vehicles mangled, personal effects strewn across the ground. I remember later hearing that the head of the suicide bomber was recovered more than 100 meters away from the blast, a grim testament to the sheer force of the explosion.

I was in my office at the Naval and Maritime Academy when my mobile phone rang. A young midshipman from the 21st intake called, his voice trembling: “Sir, there was a huge explosion at the convoy point! Many are dead … my batch mate Wijesundara is among them.” I immediately jumped into my jeep with my escort Chief Petty Officer and driver and rushed to Digampathana, relying on every ounce of my driving skill to reach the scene. The journey, which usually took little more than an hour, felt endless that day, each passing mile weighed down by dread.

When I arrived, I was confronted with a sight that no training can prepare you for. The injured were being rushed to Dambulla Hospital, where doctors and nurses worked tirelessly, improvising in ways that saved lives despite the overwhelming chaos. I went back to the site after visiting the hospital. The remains of our naval personnel were scattered across the ground, and someone had begun collecting weapons and protective gear. I immediately contacted Surgeon Rear Admiral Nico Jayasekara and received his instructions: collect all body parts in separate bags and transport them to the Trincomalee Naval Hospital mortuary. This gruesome work had to be done with care and dignity, and it filled the icebox in my vehicle. Through DNA testing initiated by Rear Admiral Nico, we were able to identify every naval personnel lost that day, bringing some closure to grieving families.

The Navy Commander at the time, Vice Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda, was devastated. I had worked closely with him and knew how deeply he cared for his men. He ensured that the fallen were honoured with full ceremonial naval funerals at Welisara Naval Base, attended by families and comrades. Sixty-seven funerals were conducted in a single day—a number that still haunts me.

The Digampathana attack remains the largest single loss of naval life in our history. It was a day of sorrow, but also a day that reinforced our resolve. The tragedy galvanized the Navy to target the LTTE Sea Tiger wing with renewed determination and reshaped our maritime operations forever. Every time I think of that day, I remember not just the lives lost, but the courage, professionalism, and dedication of those who survived, those who treated the injured, and those who ensured the fallen were honored properly. May the souls of our naval hero’s rest in peace, their sacrifice guiding us and inspiring generations of naval personnel to come.

Continue Reading

Features

‘Murder at Whitby Abbey’

Published

on

Tales of Mystery and Suspense – 24

I was intrigued by the title of a book I found in a book drop at the condominium of a friend, Murder at Whitby Abbey, and I brought it home with me though I will not be able to return it in the near future. It was described on the cover page as ‘a standout in the crowded medieval mystery field’, though I fear I do not know of other books in this field, apart from the Cadfael series, which I have dealt with earlier.

The book, by Cassandra Clark, is set during the reign of Richard II and has as a backdrop his precarious position, which led to his being replaced, and murdered, by his cousin Henry, who reigned as Henry IV. It is a gloomy book, the action taking place in the twelve days of Christmas leading up to the Epiphany. And the gloom is pervasive, even though this is supposed to be a time of festivity, with mummers performing, and many of those in the guest house where the heroine stays going to town to enjoy themselves, with much drinking and much music, which also fills the guesthouse.

The heroine Hildegarde is a nun, sent to try to acquire a relic being sold by Whitby Abbey, though this was also a penance set by the Abbot of the monastery that governed her abbess because she had had sex with a man. Soon after she and her companions reach the Abbey set high on a cliff, she finds that there are other bidders, and soon suspects that the hierarchy, not perhaps the Abbot who seems a weakling, but his rapacious bursar, is determined to make money, and not above creating false relics to sell to several aspirants.

After Hildegarde and her Cistercian companions – Whitby is a Benedictine Foundation – two monks, Gregory and Egbert, and a young priest Mark, reach the abbey, they find that Aelwyn, a monk they had met on their way to the guesthouse had died. This was in the apple store, and they realize, when they find the surplices of novices stuffed into the air vents, that he had been left to suffocate in the overwhelming scent of apples.

Clark

The Cistercians are asked to look into the death, perhaps because they are likely to get no cooperation from the Abbey folk, but perhaps because those in charge are keen to know what happened. And the infirmarer, an old monk, suggests Hildegarde talk to a man called Edred who worked for the bursar, and had been a friend of Aelwyn’s. But Edred too is killed, before he can keep an appointment he had made with Hildegarde, drowned in a pool near the farmhouse of the Abbey.

Meanwhile tensions arise between the fisherfolk and the abbey for the bursar wants to charge them for using the beach that technically belongs to the abbey to dry their fish and their nets. This leads to physical battles, when the guards used by the abbey, under the command it seems of the bursar whose determination to make money is not resisted by the abbot and the prior, try to storm the area where the fishermen live.

Hildegard finds out more about what had happened through two youngsters, one of whom Torold is the son of Aelwyn by a woman who worked as a prostitute for a cartel, and with whom Mark fell in love. The other works on the farm and had seen Edred meet someone near the pool, after which that someone left the place by himself. And the boy had also found in the pool a sort of dagger with the seal of the abbey.

He and his dog, and Torold who follows her, rescue Hildegarde from a man at arms who has waylaid her and tries to rape her earlier. Escaping into the abbey she was nearly been raped then by the bursar, but she managed to escape, in the process setting fire to him and the muniments room, which led, when he was rescued, to the discovery of a box with the money he said had been stolen, blame being cast on both Aelwyn and Edred.

Matters come to a head when the fisherfolk try to storm the abbey, being resisted by the men at arms stationed on the towers. But then Hildegarde realizes that behind the murders was the bursar’s clerk, whom she pursued to the cathedral. There is great drama then as she escapes from him when he tries to kill her, and then from the man at arms who had tried to both rape and kill her, but they both fall from the scaffolding she had climbed, the latter coming from a tower where he had been stationed.

Both of them think they run the rapacity of the abbey, the latter claiming to work for the nobles opposed to Richard, who is presented throughout the book as devoted to his subjects, not to power or money. But though the villains die, the bursar continues, having got over the hysteria the fire had caused and his acknowledgment then of guilt – and though the abbot and the prior seem less vicious, whether they will be able to assert themselves is questionable.

Before the climax, when the others in the guesthouse were leaving, Hildegarde found that two of them were in possession of the relic, for which they seem to have paid well. Hildegarde herself had made a derisory offer, but before she leaves the abbot gives her the relic, perhaps in gratitude for what she and her fellow Cistercians had discovered, the abbey having made as much money as it needed and more from the gullible other buyers.

Mark’s inamorata is saved from the stews because she moves in with Edred’s widow whom the bursar had thrown out of the rooms he occupied when her husband was found dead. Hildegarde had paid for lodgings, in a house run by the man who ran the brothels, but he had a kindly side and was going to finance them to make nets for the fishermen.

So, the Cistercians set off for their home as swiftly as they can to get there on the day of the Epiphany, having stopped en route to pray for King Richard whose birthday it was.

Continue Reading

Trending