Connect with us

Midweek Review

Canadian acceptance of genocide jolts Sri Lanka

Published

on

On the eve of war victory anniversary

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Sri Lanka brought the war to a successful conclusion on the morning of May 19, 12 years ago. The nearly three-year-long combined security forces campaign ended on the banks of the Nanthikadal lagoon with the elimination of Velupillai Prabhakaran, the undisputed leader of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

 The then President Mahinda Rajapaksa gave resolute leadership until the armed forces eradicated the LTTE. The President disregarded intense Western pressure to halt the Vanni offensive, east of the Kandy-Jaffna A 9 road. Western powers made a determined bid to throw a lifeline to the LTTE, in order to save the LTTE-TNA (Tamil National Alliance) alliance. So much so, the British and the French sent their Foreign Ministers, David Miliband and Bernard Kouchner, respectively, to pressure President Rajapaksa. Their combined visit took place in the last week of April, 2009.

The writer was very fortunate to visit the SLN, deployed off Mullaitivu on the northern coast, to prevent the top LTTE leadership fleeing the country. The SLN threw a four-layered cordon, consisting of small boats (Arrows), Inshore Patrol Craft (IPCs), Fast Attack Craft (FACs) and Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs) in January 2009. The SLAF, deployed a pair of jets at China Bay, in case of an emergency. President Mahinda Rajapaksa, quite determined to bring the LTTE menace to an end, told the visiting European ministers the offensive wouldn’t be stopped, under any circumstances. The Sri Lankan leader had no qualms in telling British and French Foreign Ministers, so, bluntly. Like a spurned lover, no wonder the West is so hell bent on going after those who made that victory possible against their then oft repeated mantra that Sri Lankan security forces were incapable of defeating the LTTE. This brings us to the question whether the West was throughout supporting the terrorist outfit, though outwardly they were condemning terrorism.  

“They’re not willing to do that,” Miliband said in an interview soon after talks with President Mahinda Rajapaksa. “The furthest the government has gone is to commit to no heavy weaponry and to minimize, what they call, collateral damage, mainly damage to civilians,” the media quoted him as having said.

If President Rajapaksa succumbed to Western pressure, the LTTE would have received the much-needed respite to re-group again. Their political arm in Parliament would have pursued the combined strategy. Had the LTTE-TNA coalition survived, the eruption of Covid-19 pandemic would have definitely presented the alliance an opportunity to exploit the situation.

Remember how they took advantage of the Dec 2004 tsunami to push for P-TOMS (Post-Tsunami Operational Management Structure) during Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s tenure as the President. The JVP challenged P-TOMS in the Supreme Court. The SC ruled four clauses of the P-TOMS illegal. Among the four clauses, termed illegal, were the ones as regards locating the regional fund headquarters in Kilinochchi and the operations of the regional fund. The JVP asserted that P-TOMS impacted on the country’s sovereignty and dubbed the mechanism as one which would confer legitimacy to a terrorist group.

If the LTTE had been around now, even with a much weaker conventional military capability, the crisis caused by the raging Covid-19 pandemic would have paved the way for the lethal alliance to seek a consensus on a vaccination drive in predominantly Tamil-speaking areas, under some pretext.

Failure of 2006 talks, subsequent developments

 The LTTE, always cleverly used opportunities to press for legitimacy. Successive political leaderships, too, played into their hands. Every national election presented the LTTE with a chance to press ahead with its despicable strategy. The 2005 presidential election was not an exception. Even the war-winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa, much to the discomfort of those who had backed his 2005 presidential polls campaign, gave into the LTTE’s demand for talks at overseas venues. Talks took place in Feb and Oct. 2006, in Geneva, under the auspices of the Norwegians, who took us trusting natives for many a ride, like the Portuguese, the Dutch and the British before them. The Norwegians inveigled the peace carrot, regardless of the abortive bids to assassinate the then Lt. Gen. Sarath Fonseka (April 25, 2006) and Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa (Oct. 01, 2006). If the LTTE achieved its targets, Sri Lanka’s triumph over terrorism wouldn’t have been possible. That is the undeniable truth.

As the country marked the 12th anniversary of triumph over terrorism, today let me remind you the despicable way the previous administration treated the victorious armed forces. The treacherous Oct. 1, 2015 Geneva Resolution, co-sponsored by the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government, betrayed the military during an extremely difficult situation. Perhaps, it would be pertinent to briefly discuss the high profile arrest of the then Commodore D.K.P. Dassanayake (retired on Feb. 16, 2021) in July 2017 in connection with the wartime disappearance of 11 persons. Dassanayake played a significant role during Vice Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda’s tenure as the Commander of the Navy. Regardless of the absence of credible evidence to link him to the disappearances blamed on the SLN, Dassanayake was called back from the USN Naval Post Graduate School, Monterey, California. At the time Dassanayake was called back, he had completed six months of the one and half year-long course.

Wartime Navy spokesperson, Dassanayake served as coordinator of the SLN cordon off of Mullaitivu – Nayaru (January-May 2009) stretch and was present when the writer visited the naval units, in April 2009. The then Commander of the Fast Attack Craft Flotilla Captain Noel Kalubowila (retired over a year ago in the rank of Rear Admiral), too, had been present during the media visit to the ‘naval frontline’. Instead of bringing the case to a successful conclusion, the previous administration played politics. The police as usual quite blatantly cooperated with the diabolical political project. The police had no qualms in falsely naming Dassanayake as Director Naval Operations (DNO). The police also falsely asserted Dassanayake supervised two teams accused of carrying out abductions. Finally, a disappointed Dassanayake retired in Feb. 2021 as the high profile case that had even been taken up in Geneva dragged on.

Dassanayake’s role in Sri Lanka’s seizure of an LTTE ship, in Dec. 2009, at an overseas harbour – seven months after the eradication of the LTTE – is something the country can be proud of. A small SLN team seized ‘Princess Christina’ — said to be one of the largest LTTE arms ships — and brought  it to the Colombo harbour.

 In spite of the change of government, in Nov. 2019, the armed forces are yet to take tangible measures to set the record straight. There cannot be any dispute over the need to punish those who had engaged in clandestine activity outside legitimate overt and covert operations undertaken by the armed forces and police to eradicate the LTTE. The previous administration’s treachery and the incumbent government’s failure, so far, to address accountability issues properly, is quite contrary to the assurances given in the run-up to the 2019 presidential and 2020 parliamentary polls. The external environment is so bad, that the Commander of the Army and Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Shavendra Silva remains blacklisted by the US. America’s bosom allies like Canada and Australia, too, have followed suit in blacklisting our war heroes.

The US imposed travel restrictions on wartime General Officer Commanding (GOC) of the celebrated 58 Division/formerly Task Force 1, in Feb. 2020. The US State Department declared travel restrictions were imposed on General Silva “due to credible information of his involvement, through command responsibility, in gross violations of human rights, namely extrajudicial killings, by the 58th Division of the Sri Lanka Army during the final phase of Sri Lanka’s civil war in 2009.”

 Accountability issues (or, in reality, trumped up charges) should be addressed without further delay. The continuing failure to set the record straight should be closely examined, taking political developments into consideration. A recent exchange between lawmakers, Field Marshal Sarath Fonseka (Samagi Jana Balavegaya, Gampaha District) and Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekera (Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna, Colombo District) emphasized how politics divided the country. Having served the country for over three decades, they accused each other of pursuing personal agendas in this most unfortunate cockfight. Furious accusations and counter allegations, in Parliament, on May 5, when they clashed over the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) denying a suspect in the Easter Sunday attacks, SJB MP and ACMC (All Ceylon Makkal Congress) leader Rishad Bathiudeen, an opportunity to attend Parliament, painted a bleak picture. Weerasekera, who retired having finally served the SLN as its Chief of Staff, accused Fonseka of being part of the Tamil Diaspora project whereas belligerent Fonseka alleged his political opponent of taking advantage of Geneva sessions for personal gain. Their clash underscored Sri Lanka’s pathetic failure to keep the country’s war victory out of politics.

 

Post-war politics

 Fonseka’s unexpected entry into politics, in 2009 with the backing of a UNP-led alliance, weakened the country’s defence against war crimes accusations. By switching his allegiance to the new coalition, that included the LTTE political wing, the TNA, Fonseka undermined the country’s defence and after quite a turbulent political career has ended up with the breakaway UNP faction, the SJB.

Fonseka and Weerasekera clashed over the latter’s assertion that lawmakers arrested in terms of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) shouldn’t be allowed to attend parliamentary proceedings. Weerasekera’s declaration that he couldn’t agree with TNA heavyweight M.A. Sumanthiran, PC’s stand as regards the issue at hand, is understandable. However, can there be a dispute between Fonseka and Weerasekera over the use of PTA in respect of lawmaker Bathiudeen, arrested in connection with the Easter Sunday carnage. Fonseka and Sumanthiran taking a common stand on the issue, at hand, should be examined against the latter publicly justifying the Easter Sunday attacks. Both served the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) that investigated the Easter Sunday attacks. The then Speaker, Karu Jayasuriya, who had been present when Sumanthiran justified the Easter Sunday attacks a week after the carnage, accommodated him in the PSC. Actually, the former Speaker, now Chairman of the NMSJ (National Movement of Social Justice), owed an explanation why he disregarded Sumanthiran’s declaration when accommodating him on the PSC, chaired by Deputy Speaker Ananda Kumarasiri.

Sumanthiran alleged that the Easter Sunday carnage was a result of Sri Lanka’s failure to ensure certain basic values. Sumanthiran warned of dire consequences unless the government addressed the grievances of the minorities. The lawmaker said so at an event, organized by the Sinhala weekly ‘Annidda’ to celebrate its first anniversary at the BMICH. Prof. Jayadeva Uyangoda, the then Human Rights Commissioner Dr. Deepika Udagama, J.C. Weliamuna, PC and the then Constitutional Council member Attorney-at-Law Javid Yusuf and filmmaker Asoka Handagama  dealt with the topic ‘Sri Lanka beyond 2020.’

Except for The Island no other print, or electronic media, bothered at least to report on what Sumanthiran said as the country was still in shock in the aftermath of the slaughter of 270 people. Even the Catholic Church refrained from taking a strong stand on Sumanthiran’s declaration, though the Archbishop of Colombo Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith condemned the statement when The Island raised the issue at a media briefing at the Archbishop’s House.

Sri Lanka obviously hadn’t been able to come to terms with political realities, even 12 years after the war ended. Canada recently recognized that Sri Lanka subjected the Tamil community to genocide. The unprecedented Canadian move was taken against the backdrop of Geneva adopting an anti-Sri Lanka resolution, with 22 countries voting for, 11 against and 14 skipping the vote.

On May 6, 2021, Ontario became the first jurisdiction in the world to recognize Sri Lanka genocide as a result of Scarborough MPP’s (Member of Provincial Parliament) private bill passed the third reading in that legislature. Let me emphasize it was adopted without a vote, under controversial circumstances, and, subsequently, received the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario Elizabeth Dowdeswell’s approval, two days after Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena raised the issue with Canadian High Commissioner in Colombo, David Mckinnon.

The Bill 104 (the Tamil Genocide Education Week Act), allocated seven days each year, May 11 to 18, during which Ontarians “are encouraged to educate themselves about, and to maintain their awareness of, the Tamil genocide and other genocides that have occurred in world history.”

On Twitter, Scarborough-Rouge Park MPP Vijay Thanigasalam, a Canadian of Sri Lanka origin, who spearheaded the project, called the passage of his Bill ‘a historic event for the Tamil people in Ontario and across the world.’ The first reading of the Bill took place on April 30, 2019, the Second Reading on May 16, 2019 and the Third Reading on May 06, 2021. It received Lieutenant Governor’s approval on May 12.

But where is the justice for acts of real genocide committed by white settlers against natives of Canada to grab their land and, of course, also in rest of Americas and even Australia?

 The Canadian recognition of Sri Lanka genocide underscored the pathetic handling of the accountability issue. In fact, Canada, a member of the Sri Lanka Core Group, in the Geneva process, relentlessly pursued the issue at hand. Wouldn’t it be pertinent to examine what Sri Lanka did during April 2019-May 2021 to reverse the process? It would be a serious mistake, on Sri Lanka’s part, to consider the genocide rap as a project of the Ontario Legislative Assembly instead of a Canadian move. The Canadian move is severely inimical to Sri Lanka. The incumbent government, struggling to cope up with the rampaging Covid-19 pandemic, shouldn’t turn a blind eye to the threatening Canadian move. With major Canadian political parties seeking to win over the large Canadian population of Sri Lankans of Tamil origin, at Sri Lanka’s expense, the Ontario project would further strengthen the Geneva-led campaign meant to weaken Sri Lanka.

Canada-based Dr. Neville Hewage, who had made representations to the Ontario Legislative Assembly, in respect of Bill 104, and was engaged in a campaign against the move throughout this period, says the propaganda project should be thwarted. In response to The Island queries as regards his decision to move the Canadian judiciary against Bill 104, Dr. Hewage said; “I am the Applicant. I submitted a constitutional question in respect of Bill 104 at the Superior Court of Justice. We expect the Superior Court of Justice to take it up within 60 days. But there may be a delay due to COVID-19 restrictions. Facts presented in Bill 104 were completely false. Truth is a Fundamental principle of the Rule of Law. Therefore, it has to be defeated in the best interest for all parties.”

Dr. Hewage stressed that he moved the court as a Canadian Citizen. Declaring he acted as an individual, Dr. Hewage explained how he could much easily navigate the legal process as a Canadian. Asserting the action would represent the interest of all groups opposed to the ongoing harassment of Sri Lanka, Dr. Hewage said some groups, such as Sri Lanka Canadian Action Coalition (SLCAC) would make interventions.

Sri Lanka should carefully examine the Canadian challenge. Those at the helm of current dispensation should realize the impact the Canadian acceptance of the genocide charge could undermine Sri Lanka’s overall defense at the Geneva HRC. Political parties, represented in Parliament, should study Bill 104. The Parliament should take up this matter on behalf of Sri Lanka and make every effort to set the record straight or be ready to face the consequences.

Over 12 years after the conclusion of the war, Sri Lanka remained divided over her finest post-independence achievement, thanks to despicable petty politics practiced here. Perhaps, the whole Geneva process should be examined now against the backdrop of Canadian acceptance of Genocide in Sri Lanka. The Geneva onslaught will take a new turn with the recognition/acceptance of Genocide charge.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Midweek Review

Batalanda and complexities of paramilitary operations

Published

on

Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s recent combative ‘Head-to-Head’ interview with British-American Mehdi Hasan on Al Jazeera has opened a can of worms. As to why Hasan raised the Batalanda Presidential Commission report, during a 49-minute interview conducted at the London’s Conway Hall, with a clearly pro LTTE audience, remains a mystery. This must be yet another notorious way to show how even-handed they are as in the case of its coverage of Russia, China, Palestine or Ukraine for their gullible viewers.

Recorded in February and aired in March 2025, the interview is definitely the most controversial the UNP leader, who is also an Attorney-at-Law, ever faced during his political career; always used to getting kid glove treatment, especially after taking over the party in 1994.

The continuing public discourse on Batalanda should provoke a wider discussion on Sri Lanka’s response to separatist Tamil terrorism, since the cold blooded murder of Jaffna SLFP Mayor Alfred Duriappah, which signalled the beginning of the LTTE terror campaign that ended in May 2009 with the crushing military defeat of the Tigers on the banks of the Nathikadal lagoon, as well as two southern insurgencies in 1971 and 1987-1990.

As Nandana Gunatilleke (one time JVP General Secretary and ex-MP), Dr. Wasantha Bandara (ex-JVPer and close associate of the slain JVP leader Rohana Wijeweera), Indrananda de Silva (ex-JVPer, incumbent Central Committee member of Frontline Socialist Party [FSP] and ex-military photographer) and Uvindu Wijeweera (Rohana Wijeweera’s son and leader of Dewana Parapura) agreed during the recent Hiru ‘Balaya’ discussion, conducted by Madushan de Silva, the Batalanda operation was in line with the overall counter-terrorist/insurgency strategy of the then government.

The issues at hand cannot be discussed at all without taking into consideration the JVP terrorism that, at one-time, almost overwhelmed the UNP’s unbroken rule, since 1977, carried out while openly brushing aside most of the universally accepted genuine parliamentary norms. The country’s second Republican constitution, promulgated by the UNP regime with a 5/6 majority in Parliament, in 1978, had been amended no less than 13 times by the time they were finally ousted in 1995. This was mainly to facilitate their continuous rule. Unfortunately, all stakeholders have sought to take advantage of Batalanda, thereby preventing a proper dialogue. Quite surprisingly, none of the guests, nor the interviewer, bothered, at least, to make a reference to the JVP bid on President J.R. Jayewardene’s life in Parliament on the morning of July 18, 1987. At the time, JVPer Ajith Kumara, working in the House as a minor employee, hurled two hand grenades towards JRJ, with the then Prime Minister Ranasinghe Premadasa seated next to JRJ. While one government MP lost his life, several others suffered injuries, including then National Security Minister Lalith Athulathmudali, whose spleen had to be removed.

At one point, Gunatilleke declared that they assassinated UNP MP for Tangalle Jinadasa Weerasinghe on July 3, 1987, in response to the government killing well over 100 people, in Colombo, protesting against the signing of the Indo-Lanka accord on July 29, 1987. The parliamentarian was killed near the Barawakumbuka-Welangahawela bridge on the Colombo-Rathnapura-Embilipitiya Road. The UNPer was killed on his way home after having declined Premier Premadasa’s offer to make an SLAF chopper available for him to reach home safely.

Against the backdrop of MP Weerasinghe’s assassination and the grenade attack on the UNP parliamentary group that claimed the life of Keethi Abeywickrema (MP for Deniyaya), the government had no option but to respond likewise. The operation, established at the Batalanda Housing scheme of the State Fertiliser Corporation, constituted part of the counter-insurgency strategy pursued by the UNP.

Those who called Batalanda complex Batalanda torture camp/ wadakagaraya conveniently forgot during the second JVP inspired insurgency, the military had to utilize many public buildings, including schools, as makeshift accommodation for troops. Of course the UNP established Batalanda under different circumstances with the then Industries Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe providing political authority. Batalanda had been an exclusive police operation though the Army had access to it whenever a requirement arose.

Those who had been suddenly withdrawn from the Northern and Eastern Provinces, to meet the rapidly evolving security threat in the South, required accommodation. FSP CC member Indrananada de Silva had received unhindered access to Batalanda in his capacity as a military photographer and the rest is history.

As to why Indrananda de Silva switched his allegiance to the FSP should be examined, taking into consideration his previous role as a trusted military photographer, formerly a Lance Corporal of the Military Police. An influential section of the JVP, led by Kumar Gunaratnam, formed the FSP in April 2012 though it didn’t receive the much anticipated public support. Both Indrananda de Silva and Nandana Gunatilleke, who aligned himself with the UNP, found fault with the JVP-led National People’s Power (NPP) over its handling of the Batalanada issue.

Paramilitary operations

Paramilitary operations had been an integral part of the overall counter-insurgency campaign, directed at the JVP responsible for approximately 6,600 killings. Among those death squads were PRRA primarily drawn from the SLMP (Sri Lanka Mahajana Party) and SRRA (the socialist Revolutionary Red Army). PRRA had close links with the Independent Student Union (ISU) whose leader Daya Pathirana was slain by the JVP. The vast majority of people do not remember that Daya Pathirana, who led the ISU during the turbulent 1985-1986 period, was killed mid-Dec. 1989. The second insurgency hadn’t started at that time though the JVP propagated the lie that they took up arms against the UNP government following the signing of the Indo-Lanka peace accord on July 29, 1987.

In addition to PRRA and SRRA, the government made use of paramilitary groups, namely Kalu balallu, Ukkusso, Rajaliyo, Kaha balallu, Kola koti, Rathu Makaru, Mapila, Gonussa, Nee, Keshara Sinhayo, Le-mappillu and Kalu koti.

The UNP also involved some elements of Indian trained Tamil groups (not of the LTTE) in paramilitary operations. Such operations, that had been backed by respective Cabinet Ministers, were supervised by local law enforcement authorities. Paramilitary operations had been in line with psychological warfare that was meant to cause fear among the JVP, as well as the general population. Military operations that had been combined with paramilitary actions received the blessings of the political leadership at the highest level. In the case of Batalanda (1988-1990) President J.R. Jayewardene and Ranasinghe Premadasa knew of its existence.

Even after the eradication of the top JVP leadership, by Nov. 1989, police, military and paramilitary operations continued unabated. Former JVPers appearing on ‘Balaya’ agreed that counter-insurgency operations were actually brought to an end only after D.B. Wijetunga succeeded President Ranasinghe Premadasa after the latter’s assassination on May Day 1993.

After the LTTE resumed war in June 1990, just a couple of months after the withdrawal of the Indian Army (July 1987-March1990), the UNP authorized paramilitary operations in the northern and eastern areas. Members of TELO, PLOTE, EPRLF as well as EPDP were made part of the overall government security strategy. They operated in large groups. Some paramilitary units were deployed in the Jaffna islands as well. And these groups were represented in Parliament. They enjoyed privileged status not only in the northern and eastern regions but Colombo as well. The government allowed them to carry weapons in the city and its suburbs.

These groups operated armed units in Colombo. The writer had the opportunity to visit EPDP and PLOTE safe houses in Colombo and its suburbs soon after they reached an understanding with President Ranasinghe Premadasa. Overnight at the behest of President Premadasa, the Election Department granted these Tamil groups political recognition. In other words, armed groups were made political parties. The Premadasa government accepted their right to carry weapons while being represented in Parliament.

It would be pertinent to mention that thousands of Tamil paramilitary personnel served the government during that period. There had been many confrontations between them and the LTTE over the years and the latter sought to eliminate key paramilitary personnel. Let me remind you of the circumstances, the EPRLF’s number 02 Thambirajah Subathiran alias Robert was sniped to death in June 2003. Robert was engaged in routine morning exercises on the top floor of the two-storeyed EPRLF office, on the hospital road, Jaffna, when an LTTE sniper took him out from the nearby Vembadi Girls’ high school. The operation of the Norway managed Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) made no difference as the LTTE removed Robert who led the party here in the absence of leader Varatharaja Perumal, the first and the only Chief Minister of the North-Eastern Province.

In terms of the CFA that had been signed by Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe and LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran, in Feb. 2002, the government agreed to disarm all paramilitary personnel. Many wouldn’t remember now that during Premadasa’s honeymoon with the LTTE, the Army facilitated the LTTE onslaught on paramilitary groups in selected areas.

Muthaliff’s role

During the ‘Balaya’ discussion, the contentious issue of who shot JVP leader Rohana Wijeweera came up. Nandana Gunatilleke, who contested the 1999 Dec. presidential election. as the JVP candidate, pointing to an article carried in the party organ that dealt with Wijeweera’s assassination said that he wrongly named Gaffoor as one of the persons who shot their leader whereas the actual shooter was Muthaliff. The headline named Thoradeniya and Gaffoor as the perpetrators.

Declaring that he personally wrote that article on the basis of information provided by Indrananda de Silva, Gunatilleke named Asoka Thoradeniya and Tuan Nizam Muthaliff of the Army as the perpetrators of the crime. Thoradeniya served as Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner in the Maldives during the Yahapalana administration, while Muthaliff was killed by the LTTE in Colombo in late May 2005. The shooting took place at Polhengoda junction, Narahenpita. Muthaliff was on his way from Manning town, Narahenpita, to the Kotelawala Defence University.

The programme was told that the JVP had over the years developed close relationship with Thoradeniya while Indrananda de Silva accused Dr. Wasantha Bandara of duplicity regarding Muthaliff. How could you recognize Muthaliff, slain by the LTTE, as a war hero as he was actually one of the persons who shot Rohana Wijeweera, the latter asked.

At the time of his assassination, Muthaliff served as the Commanding Officer, 1 st Regiment Sri Lanka Military Intelligence Corps. The then parliamentarian Wimal Weerawansa was among those who paid last respects to Maj. Muthaliff.

At the time of Rohana Wijeweera’s arrest, Muthaliff served as Lieutenant while Thoradeniya was a Major. Indrananda de Silva strongly stressed that atrocities perpetrated by the police and military in the South or in the northern and eastern regions must be dealt with regardless of whom they were conducting operations against. The former JVPer recalled the Army massacre in the east in retaliation for the landmine blast that claimed the lives of Northern Commander Maj. Gen. Denzil Kobbekaduwa and a group of senior officers, including Brigadier Wijaya Wimalaratne, in early Aug. 1990 in Kayts.

Dr. Wasantha Bandara warned of the Western powers taking advantage of what he called false narrative to push for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

It would be pertinent to mention that the LTTE also used the underworld as well as some corrupt Army personnel in planning high profile assassinations. Investigations into the assassination of Muthaliff, as well as Maj. Gen. Parami Kulatunga, killed in a suicide attack at Pannipitiya, in June 2006, revealed the direct involvement of military personnel with the LTTE.

Indrananda de Silva disclosed that soon after Anura Kumara Dissanayake won the presidential election last September, the FSP, in writing, requested the JVP leader to inquire into killings during that period, including that of Rohana Wijeweera. The FSPer alleged that President Dissanayake refrained from even acknowledging their letter. Indrananda de Silva emphasized that Al Jazeera never disclosed anything new as regards Batalanda as he exposed the truth years ago. The former JVPer ridiculed the ruling party tabling the Batalanda Commission report in the wake of Wickremesinghe’s Al Jazeera interview whereas the matter was in the public domain for quite some time.

Indrananda de Silva and Nandana Gunatilleke exchanged words over the latter’s declaration that the JVP, too, was subjected to investigation for violence unleashed during the 1987-1990 period. While the FSPer repeatedly declared that those who carried out directives issued by the party were arrested and in some cases killed, Nandana Gunatilleke took up the position that the party should be held accountable for crimes perpetrated during that period.

The interviewer posed Nandana Gunatilleke the question whether he was betraying his former comrades after joining the UNP. Nandana Gunatilleke shot back that he joined the UNP in 2015 whereas the JVP joined UNP as far back as 2009 to promote retired Army Chef Sarath Fonseka’s presidential ambition even though he wiped out the JVP presence in Trincomalee region during the second insurgency.

JVP’s accountability

Nandana Gunatilleke is adamant that the party should accept responsibility for the killings carried out at that time. The former JVPer declared that Vijaya Kumaratunga (Feb. 16, 1988), first Vice Chancellor of the Colombo University (March 08, 1989) Dr. Stanley Wijesundera, Ven. Kotikawatte Saddhatissa thera (Aug. 03, 1988) and Chairperson of the State Pharmaceutical Corporation Gladys Jayewardene (Sept. 12, 1989) were among those assassinated by the JVP. SPC Chairperson was killed for importing medicine from India, the former Marxist aligned with the UNP said, while actor-turned-politician Kumaratunga’s assassination was attributed to his dealings with President J.R. Jayewardene.

According to Nandana Gunatilleke, except for a few killings such as General Secretaries of the UNP Harsha Abeywickrema (Dec 23, 1987) and Nandalal Fernando (May 20, 1988), the vast majority of others were ordinary people like grama sevakas killed on mere accusation of being informants. The deaths were ordered on the basis of hearsay, Nandana Gunatilleke said, much to the embarrassment of others who represented the interest of the JVP at that time.

One quite extraordinary moment during the ‘Balaya’ programme was when Nandana Gunatilleke revealed their (JVP’s) direct contact with the Indian High Commission at a time the JVP publicly took an extremely anti-Indian stance. In fact, the JVP propagated a strong anti-Indian line during the insurgency. Turning towards Dr. Wasantha Bandara, Gunatilleke disclosed that both of them had been part of the dialogue with the Indian High Commission.

It reminds me of the late Somawansa Amarasinghe’s first public address delivered at a JVP rally in late Nov. 2001 after returning home from 12 years of self-imposed exile. Of the top JVP leadership, Somawansa Amarasinghe, who had been married to a close relative of powerful UNP Minister Sirisena Cooray, was the only one to survive combined police/military/paramilitary operations.

Amarasinghe didn’t mince his words when he declared at a Kalutara rally that his life was saved by Indian Premier V.P. Singh. Soft spoken Amarasinghe profusely thanked India for saving his life. Unfortunately, those who discuss issues at hand conveniently forget crucial information in the public domain. Such lapses can be both deliberate and due to negligence.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

Independent Monitor

Published

on

You may think sloth comes very easy,

To your kingly monitor of the shrinking marsh,

As he lies basking smugly in the morn sun,

But he is organized and alert all the while,

As he awaits his prey with patience infinite,

Free of malice, a professional of a kind,

His cumbrous body not slowing his sprite….

But note, he’s no conspirator spitting guile,

And doesn’t turn nasty unless crossed,

Nor by vengeful plans is he constantly dogged,

Unlike those animals of a more rational kind,

Whose ways have left behind a state so sorry.

By Lynn Ockersz

Continue Reading

Midweek Review

Rajiva on Batalanda controversy, govt.’s failure in Geneva and other matters

Published

on

Wickremesinghe responds to Hasan during the controversial interview recorded in London

Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s recent interview with Mehdi Hasan on Al Jazeera’s ‘Head-to-Head’ series has caused controversy, both in and outside Parliament, over the role played by Wickremesinghe in the counter-insurgency campaign in the late’80s.

The National People’s Power (NPP) seeking to exploit the developing story to its advantage has ended up with egg on its face as the ruling party couldn’t disassociate from the violent past of the JVP. The debate on the damning Presidential Commission report on Batalanda, on April 10, will remind the country of the atrocities perpetrated not only by the UNP, but as well as by the JVP.

The Island sought the views of former outspoken parliamentarian and one-time head of the Government Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process (SCOPP) Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha on a range of issues, with the focus on Batalanda and the failure on the part of the war-winning country to counter unsubstantiated war crimes accusations.

Q:

The former President and UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe’s interview with Al Jazeera exposed the pathetic failure on the part of Sri Lanka to address war crimes accusations and accountability issues. In the face of aggressive interviewer Mehdi Hasan on ‘Head-to-Head,’ Wickremesinghe struggled pathetically to counter unsubstantiated accusations. Six-time Premier Wickremesinghe who also served as President (July 2022-Sept. 2024) seemed incapable of defending the war-winning armed forces. However, the situation wouldn’t have deteriorated to such an extent if President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who gave resolute political leadership during that war, ensured a proper defence of our armed forces in its aftermath as well-choreographed LTTE supporters were well in place, with Western backing, to distort and tarnish that victory completely. As wartime Secretary General of the Government’s Secretariat for Coordinating the Peace Process (since June 2007 till the successful conclusion of the war) and Secretary to the Ministry of Disaster Management and Human Rights (since Jun 2008) what do you think of Wickremesinghe’s performance?

A:

It made him look very foolish, but this is not surprising since he has no proper answers for most of the questions put to him. Least surprising was his performance with regard to the forces, since for years he was part of the assault forces on the successful Army, and expecting him to defend them is like asking a fox to stand guard on chickens.

Q:

In spite of trying to overwhelm Wickremesinghe before a definitely pro-LTTE audience at London’s Conway Hall, Hasan further exposed the hatchet job he was doing by never referring to the fact that the UNP leader, in his capacity as the Yahapalana Premier, co-sponsored the treacherous Geneva Resolution in Oc., 2015, against one’s own victorious armed forces. Hasan, Wickremesinghe and three panelists, namely Frances Harrison, former BBC-Sri Lanka correspondent, Director of International Truth and Justice Project and author of ‘Still Counting the Dead: Survivors of Sri Lanka’s Hidden War,’ Dr. Madura Rasaratnam, Executive Director of PEARL (People for Equality and Relief in Lanka) and former UK and EU MP and Wickremesinghe’s presidential envoy, Niranjan Joseph de Silva Deva Aditya, never even once referred to India’s accountability during the programme recorded in late February but released in March. As a UPFA MP (2010-2015) in addition to have served as Peace Secretariat Chief and Secretary to the Disaster Management and Human Rights Ministry, could we discuss the issues at hand leaving India out?

A:

I would not call the interview a hatchet job since Hasan was basically concerned about Wickremesinghe’s woeful record with regard to human rights. In raising his despicable conduct under Jayewardene, Hasan clearly saw continuity, and Wickremesinghe laid himself open to this in that he nailed his colours to the Rajapaksa mast in order to become President, thus making it impossible for him to revert to his previous stance. Sadly, given how incompetent both Wickremesinghe and Rajapaksa were about defending the forces, one cannot expect foreigners to distinguish between them.

Q:

You are one of the many UPFA MPs who backed Maithripala Sirisena’s candidature at the 2015 presidential election. The Sirisena-Wickremesinghe duo perpetrated the despicable act of backing the Geneva Resolution against our armed forces and they should be held responsible for that. Having thrown your weight behind the campaign to defeat Mahinda Rajapaksa’s bid to secure a third term, did you feel betrayed by the Geneva Resolution? And if so, what should have the Yahapalana administration done?

A:

By 2014, given the total failure of the Rajapaksas to deal firmly with critiques of our forces, resolutions against us had started and were getting stronger every year. Mahinda Rajapaksa laid us open by sacking Dayan Jayatilleke who had built up a large majority to support our victory against the Tigers, and appointed someone who intrigued with the Americans. He failed to fulfil his commitments with regard to reforms and reconciliation, and allowed for wholesale plundering, so that I have no regrets about working against him at the 2015 election. But I did not expect Wickremesinghe and his cohorts to plunder, too, and ignore the Sirisena manifesto, which is why I parted company with the Yahapalanaya administration, within a couple of months.

I had expected a Sirisena administration to pursue some of the policies associated with the SLFP, but he was a fool and his mentor Chandrika was concerned only with revenge on the Rajapaksas. You cannot talk about betrayal when there was no faith in the first place. But I also blame the Rajapaksas for messing up the August election by attacking Sirisena and driving him further into Ranil’s arms, so that he was a pawn in his hands.

Q:

Have you advised President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government how to counter unsubstantiated war crimes allegations propagated by various interested parties, particularly the UN, on the basis of the Panel of Experts (PoE) report released in March 2011? Did the government accept your suggestions/recommendations?

A:

Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha

I kept trying, but Mahinda was not interested at all, and had no idea about how to conduct international relations. Sadly, his Foreign Minister was hanging around behind Namal, and proved incapable of independent thought, in his anxiety to gain further promotion. And given that I was about the only person the international community, that was not prejudiced, took seriously – I refer to the ICRC and the Japanese with whom I continued to work, and, indeed, the Americans, until the Ambassador was bullied by her doctrinaire political affairs officer into active undermining of the Rajapaksas – there was much jealousy, so I was shut out from any influence.

But even the admirable effort, headed by Godfrey Gunatilleke, was not properly used. Mahinda Rajapaksa seemed to me more concerned with providing joy rides for people rather than serious counter measures, and representation in Geneva turned into a joke, with him even undermining Tamara Kunanayagam, who, when he supported her, scored a significant victory against the Americans, in September 2011. The Ambassador, who had been intriguing with her predecessor, then told her they would get us in March, and with a little help from their friends here, they succeeded.

Q:

As the writer pointed out in his comment on Wickremesinghe’s controversial Al Jazeera interview, the former Commander-in-Chief failed to mention critically important matters that could have countered Hasan’ s line of questioning meant to humiliate Sri Lanka?

A:

How could you have expected that, since his primary concern has always been himself, not the country, let alone the armed forces?

Q:

Do you agree that Western powers and an influential section of the international media cannot stomach Sri Lanka’s triumph over separatist Tamil terrorism?

A:

There was opposition to our victory from the start, but this was strengthened by the failure to move on reconciliation, creating the impression that the victory against the Tigers was seen by the government as a victory against Tamils. The failure of the Foreign Ministry to work with journalists was lamentable, and the few exceptions – for instance the admirable Vadivel Krishnamoorthy in Chennai or Sashikala Premawardhane in Canberra – received no support at all from the Ministry establishment.

Q:

A couple of months after the 2019 presidential election, Gotabaya Rajapaksa declared his intention to withdraw from the Geneva process. On behalf of Sri Lanka that announcement was made in Geneva by the then Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena, who became the Premier during Wickremesinghe’s tenure as the President. That declaration was meant to hoodwink the Sinhala community and didn’t alter the Geneva process and even today the project is continuing. As a person who had been closely involved in the overall government response to terrorism and related matters, how do you view the measures taken during Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s short presidency to counter Geneva?

A:

What measures? I am reminded of the idiocy of the responses to the Darusman report by Basil and Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who went on ego trips and produced unreadable volumes trying to get credit for themselves as to issues of little interest to the world. They were planned in response to Darusman, but when I told Gotabaya that his effort was just a narrative of action, he said that responding to Darusman was not his intention. When I said that was necessary, he told me he had asked Chief-of-Staff Roshan Goonetilleke to do that, but Roshan said he had not been asked and had not been given any resources.

My own two short booklets which took the Darusman allegations to pieces were completely ignored by the Foreign Ministry.

Q:

Against the backdrop of the Geneva betrayal in 2015 that involved the late Minister Mangala Samaraweera, how do you view President Wickremesinghe’s response to the Geneva threat?

A: Wickremesinghe did not see Geneva as a threat at all. Who exactly is to blame for the hardening of the resolution, after our Ambassador’s efforts to moderate it, will require a straightforward narrative from the Ambassador, Ravinatha Ariyasinha, who felt badly let down by his superiors. Geneva should not be seen as a threat, since as we have seen follow through is minimal, but we should rather see it as an opportunity to put our own house in order.

Q:

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake recently questioned both the loyalty and professionalism of our armed forces credited with defeating Northern and Southern terrorism. There hadn’t been a previous occasion, a President or a Premier, under any circumstances, questioned the armed forces’ loyalty or professionalism. We cannot also forget the fact that President Dissanayake is the leader of the once proscribed JVP responsible for death and destruction during 1971 and 1987-1990 terror campaigns. Let us know of your opinion on President Dissanayake’s contentious comments on the armed forces?

A: I do not see them as contentious, I think what is seen as generalizations was critiques of elements in the forces. There have been problems, as we saw from the very different approach of Sarath Fonseka and Daya Ratnayake, with regard to civilian casualties, the latter having planned a campaign in the East which led to hardly any civilian deaths. But having monitored every day, while I headed the Peace Secretariat, all allegations, and obtained explanations of what happened from the forces, I could have proved that they were more disciplined than other forces in similar circumstances.

The violence of the JVP and the LTTE and other such groups was met with violence, but the forces observed some rules which I believe the police, much more ruthlessly politicized by Jayewardene, failed to do. The difference in behaviour between the squads led for instance by Gamini Hettiarachchi and Ronnie Goonesinghe makes this clear.

Q:

Mehdi Hasan also strenuously questioned Wickremesinghe on his role in the UNP’s counter-terror campaign during the 1987-1990 period. The British-American journalists of Indian origins attacked Wickremesinghe over the Batalanda Commission report that had dealt with extra-judicial operations carried out by police, acting on the political leadership given by Wickremesinghe. What is your position?

A:

Wickremesinghe’s use of thugs’ right through his political career is well known. I still recall my disappointment, having thought better of him, when a senior member of the UNP, who disapproved thoroughly of what Jayewardene had done to his party, told me that Wickremesinghe was not honest because he used thugs. In ‘My Fair Lady,’ the heroine talks about someone to whom gin was mother’s milk, and for Wickremesinghe violence is mother’s milk, as can be seen by the horrors he associated with.

The latest revelations about Deshabandu Tennakoon, whom he appointed IGP despite his record, makes clear his approval for extra-judicial operations.

Q:

Finally, will you explain how to counter war crimes accusations as well as allegations with regard to the counter-terror campaign in the’80s?

A:

I do not think it is possible to counter allegations about the counter-terror campaign of the eighties, since many of those allegations, starting with the Welikada Prison massacre, which Wickremesinghe’s father admitted to me the government had engendered, are quite accurate. And I should stress that the worst excesses, such as the torture and murder of Wijeyedasa Liyanaarachchi, happened under Jayewardene, since there is a tendency amongst the elite to blame Premadasa. He, to give him his due, was genuine about a ceasefire, which the JVP ignored, foolishly in my view though they may have had doubts about Ranjan Wijeratne’s bona fides.

With regard to war crimes accusations, I have shown how, in my ‘Hard Talk’ interview, which you failed to mention in describing Wickeremesinghe’s failure to respond coherently to Hasan. The speeches Dayan Jayatilleke and I made in Geneva make clear what needed and still needs to be done, but clear sighted arguments based on a moral perspective that is more focused than the meanderings, and the frequent hypocrisy, of critics will not now be easy for the country to furnish.

 

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Continue Reading

Trending