Connect with us

Features

Peaceful and Unlawful Assembly

Published

on

by Lalin Fernando

This is a response to the media, the BASL and foreigners who never give up preaching on how ‘peaceful protesters’ were attacked ‘brutally’ by the Security Forces, especially at Galle Face Green on July. 22. With hundreds of thousands of protesters (Sunday Times Aug . 7) including non-nationals living on charity,, who were the peaceful protesters?

There is a right to peaceful assembly but not to unlawful assembly..Under which law can protesters ‘peacefully’ block access to government buildings or interfere with other purposes the building was designed for? Can they obstruct vehicles or pedestrian traffic or cause a threat to public peace?.Did they not?
Interestingly in the UK the punishment for a public nuisance offence is life imprisonment under laws made eons ago. .So which law, ancient or modern, allowed protesters to occupy the Presidential Secretariat in SL? Was it the same law that allowed protesters to overrun the President’s official residence, the prime minister’s office, set fire to the prime minister’s home, murder persons on May 9 and incinerate 76- 91 homes of MPs etc? Were the people who did so ‘peaceful’, never mind the protests?

An unlawful or any assembly of five or more persons likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace may be ordered to disperse by a magistrate or police officer not below Inspector rank and it will be the duty of the of the members of such assembly to disperse (Code of Criminal Procedure Act (No 15 of 1979 Sect 95).Did the protesters do so? Peacefully or otherwise?

Unlawful assembly is one in which those involved behave in a violent, boisterous, disruptive or tumultuous manner. Who else except Ambassador Chung and the media remembers all these protesters being ‘peaceful’? The leaders and associated ruffians were blood thirsty..

Unlawful assemblies can be dispersed with the use military force by a commissioned officer of any of the three Forces acting alone in the absence of a magistrate or Inspector level police officer (Sect 96).The military has not used military force so far. Possibly because Ms. Chung thinks ‘the time is not right just now’. Will she signal the right time? Heaven help SL when she does, knowing how well she knows what ‘force’ is including ‘shredding’.

Public order – a definition
It is an offence to use threatening or abusive words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour or display in writing signs, a representation of which is threatening or abusive in the hearing or sight of a person that is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Were we deaf and blind from April 22 that we did not see the behaviour of the mobs as ‘threatening’ or ‘abusive’ and in fact by some massive abberation thought they were actually ‘peaceful’?
Who decides which is which? The BASL,the media, Ms. Chung or the police? Why was a magistrate not asked to be present at barricades to decide? Did the sight of ‘ thousands upon thousands’ baying for blood prevent the legal system from functioning through fear and cowardice of those responsible for public security?
The same people who, did not hesitate to castigate, ridicule and insult the police soon after they took office? Who then weighed in profoundly to say the constitution was irrelevant and the government illegitimate helping to creating a state of anarchy? It actually became the popular thing to say so until an Emergency was declared and arrests were made.

Suddenly the Government that had been in a blue funk due to its guilt that made its promise of splendour and prosperity become one of nightmares and bankruptcy, had stood up.,following the example of the present President. Had the BASL taken the place of the judiciary to misdirect the country?
Yes, absolutely no force should be used against ‘peaceful’ protesters or a peaceful assembly in SL .However the time was not long past when mounted police in western capitals laid about with swords (Belgium, France?) to disperse unlawful or not, ‘assemblies’.The Jallianwalla Bagh Amritsar (India) massacre of peaceful protesters (it was a religious holiday) may be forgotten by some but not by Indians

Gen Dyer’s orders to the troops led to 1,200 killed and 1,500 wounded in 1919. Winston Churchill called it ‘intolerably monstrous”.In 2019 Britain ‘expressed regret’ but did not apologise to India..Lessons were not fully learned even 50 years on. .The British in Kenya were intolerable again.The Ohio State National Guard on 4 May 1970 shot and killed 4 Kent University undergrads and wounded nine with 69 rounds being fired by 28 Guardsmen in 13 secs when confronting an unarmed peaceful protests against US involvement in Cambodia.

Some of the dead were only observing the protests from 300 yards.Four million undergrads from universities all over the USA walked out in sympathy.. In 1974 the USA with 7,000 troops and press ganged support from six Caribbean countries invaded Grenada.Why? It had a leftist government supported by Cuba. It is 100 miles from Venezuela. Was this an anti left protest launched by the USA? It ended in a farce .

A mental asylum was bombed by the USAF. USA had 25 troops killed and 59 wounded.The inter force communications had not been tested. It ended with US Navy ships having to call back to their command HQ in USA to inform USAF pilots circling overhead in Grenada about opportunity targets. Grenada had 45 killed in action and 337 wounded inaction (not including Cubans)..

Grenada covers an area of 344 sq kms and had a population of 84,000 in 1993. The 7,000 US troops consisted of two Ranger battalions, the crack 82 Airborne Division and the Rapid Deployment Force! In 1919 the British declared martial law in Ceylon.They shot without judicial trial very many national leaders including William Pedris They panicked thinking it was an uprising against British rule. A Brit officer used to have his breakfast watching the executions. Is it not arrant arrogance and stupidity for the US or British envoys whose countries had enslaved Africans, taken native lands by force and attempted genocide of American Indians to preach to SL on how to deal with protesters?

The British action in dealing with ‘protesters’ in Wellawaya in the ‘Great Liberation war’ (1817-18) laid waste the fertile countryside and killed all males above 10 years of age.This was a catastrophy the effects of which were seen in the insurrection of 1971.The survivors swell the ranks of ‘protesters’ yet The SL Police style of operating by first establishing communications with the mobs is exemplary.Their monumental and enduring patience over the last four months is extraordinary.It has to be highly commended. However, except for the Colombo middle and upper middle class originals (generally) ,and the farmers, teachers, unionists etc were there not at Galle Face Green (GFG) peace hating protesters too? Have they been treated differently for being different?

Were they the followers of the terrorists of 1971?; who later together with the then President who had an entente with them, were responsible for 60,000 death in 13 months 1988/9? .Were they the new shock troops, well fed and generously looked after by the original ‘Aragalists with deep pockets, that attacked the police barriers almost daily in 2022 while the poor people were struggling to find food to feed their families among shortages of other bare essentials?

So what were they actually fighting for? (WHO says 6 million – nearly a quarter of the SL population, mainly children and women) are on the brink of starvation? At GFG who would have believed WHO? Food was in plenty and of all varieties, while drink flowed and dancers did the merry baila and other jigs. It looked so western fun, like a song/drug festival in the West whoever funded it.
The police always, repeat always, attempted at first to communicate with the ‘peaceful protesters’ and pacify them at every demo..They did not threaten.They ended up using water canon and firing tear gas when the barrier toppling thousands of ‘peaceniks’ breached their defences.Surely this last police response could not be correct if the protests were ‘peaceful’? Who did something wrong? The police or the ‘protesters’?

To say that only ‘some’ trouble makers have ‘infiltrated the current’ protesters’ as in one newspaper, is hypocrisy..Were the ‘some’ of those ‘peaceful’ thousands who with years of experience in terrorising especially freshers with savage ragging in all except the Northern and Eastern universities ,(they would not have dared) switched from site to site to challenge and overrun, outnumbered, neutered and emasculated police/military (POLMIL) that had their hands/batons/weapons tied?.When the Presidential Secretariat was taken back in July after illegal occupation, the numbers game was reversed. That took the obstinate ‘peaceful’ protesters completely by surprise.

The ‘some’ trouble makers knew the police would only use tear gas and water canon while the troops sadly acted like dummies. Few doubted that a state of near anarchy prevailed. It grew in intensity with every protest. The law was openly flouted (to the delight of many) by these ‘some’ trouble makers.Was it not their actions in 1988/89 that resulted in 60,000 deaths in 13 months? Does Ms Chung know?.

The killings were limited only to the Sinhalese while massive damage was done to govt. property, administrative machinery and national infrastructure. .The country was nearly shut down by the then ‘aragalists/terrorists’ distributing ‘chits’ and slaughtering anyone who disobeyed them even for keeping lights on in one’s home? Is this their third and final attempt?

However there are laws that protect the citizen’s body and his property and also public property.The police are there to see that these laws are enforced. Sadly they did little if nothing instead during these ‘peaceful’ protests due to poor leadership at national level including some of the top brass of the police.
Was this due to ignorance or fear and possibly due to Western interference and influence Or was it due to threats such as the visit to MOD by the western envoys? There was also the fear of a Geneva backlash.

Ironically it was the new elected by parliament President,hardly a Sando, (but much reviled by many of his former friends, sycophants and beneficiaries). who decided to invoke these laws, now called harsh.If these only knew the provisions of the US Patriot Act they would throw up.The new President during most of his over 40 years as a politician was the knight in shining western dress for the elite in Colombo, especially the middle aged women. Where are they now? Have they not done the SL thing? Desert and abandon when the going turns bad.

The former ex-military Prez disappeared. It may have been out of guilt for the horrible state of the nation under him or by being ill advised as usual..Did they all forget the Penal code? Who advised him on his course of action? Were they the same rotters of boastful academic (Viyathmaga) fame who are now deserting like rats?

The past president had a heroic choice when the final push came to overrun the near naked and ordered to be spastic, defenders of President’s 250 year old House (not ‘Palace’ as the western media likes to dub all non western leader’s houses) .Like General Gordon, vastly outnumbered , he could have faced the mobs alone. Gordon with his Egyptian and British troops near starvation after many months of encirclement, faced the Madhi of Sudan and his Dervish army at Khartoum.Gordon had often said that when God distributed fear he ran short of it when he came to Gordon.

Unfortunately for him the Dervish attackers had dodged God too.They were devilishly brave too They hacked off his head. Gota had probably not heard of Gordon who had a steamer on the Nile just behind his house (not Palace) to evacuate him.He refused. Ironically Gota had a SLN ship ready. He used it, fortunately.
It is now rumoured that Gota may come back to SL. Whenever he does, he may be compared by the fanciful SL media that likened him earlier to Hitler,(SL is a sucker for western imagery) to Napoleon coming back from Elba.Would the Western powers then contrive to send him to Guantanamo instead of St Helena even before a 100 days pass?

As for defending not only Presidents but all citizens Penal code Sec 25 para 89 clearly states that ‘nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of private defence. Why then did the police not use force to defend the President’s life? Where does it say force cannot be used?. Self defence does not cease as long as the threat to life exists.

This important if not vital aspect of law is skillfully or cunningly not elaborated to the lay person by the countless BASL bulletins .The use of force causing even death is within the law in self defence. Six offences are specified.Who judges what is justifiable or proportionate? Is it the BASL, the media, western envoys ,or the individual (s) in danger?

The security forces (police) opened fire only at Rambukkana after a long, hot, whole day of protests that included stone throwing and attemped arson.The protesters hail from a long established JVP hotbed. Their activities included an abortive attempt at setting fire to the only petrol shed and a lone fuel tanker because there was no fuel!. If a person is killed or injured while the person is exercising his right of self defence he may still be arrested until the case is heard and extenuating circumstances if any are proved.This is not the law of the jungle or of asses .The police and others knew but were not convinced there was a level playing or fighting field. prevailing.

The ‘peaceful’ protesters destroyed 91 (MP Welgama in parliament in July 2022) houses of Govt MPs by arson on 9 May 22 and murdered nine(9) people including one MP whose naked body was dragged along the street .Did Mrs Chun see this? What would the BASL and media have stated if the law as given above was acted upon when the threat manifested itself? Would it be called an exhibition of brute force? Have they seen the very same activists displaying different slogans periodically attacking university students who disagree with them?

Para 90 states self defence covers ‘his own body or that of any other person against an offence affecting the human body.’….. and ‘property’. Any citizen, not only the police can act under that law .The police ordinance too provides legal cover.But the police it would appear were ordered to ignore the law.What was the IGP thinking and why?

Para 95 states the right to private defence ‘commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat and continues as long as apprehension of danger to the body continues’…So when does reasonable apprehension manifest itself and end? Is it after killing(s) and stripped bodies are dragged along streets or when a threat with paving stones, clubs and steel rods is apparent?

Para 96 covers mischief by fire or explosion … where ‘death or grievous hurt’ may result while para 99 covers Mobs.The same rights of defence applies.
Clearly the police are fully aware of all this as are the Forces when trained for duties in Aid of the Civil’ power .The principles followed are prevention,necessity, impartiality and minimum force..Impartiality is required when 2 mobs confront each other..Red shirts only cannot be the targets! Minimum force is the force applied immediately to stop danger to body or property and not after any bargaining as at the Presidential Secretariat in July 22..It normally starts after non lethal methods have failed. A single live round may be fired at a law breaker.If the danger continues 2 rounds may be fired.If the danger persists, heaven forbid but the aggressor may force the issue, a volley may be fired! The last has never happened in SL The worst example was at Amritsar during British rule in the late 1910s when machine guns were used under the orders of Gen Dyer Hundreds of Indians were killed.Dyer was killed in revenge much later in England.

The original protesters were organised, smartly dressed, well fed and wined, educated, witty, tech savvy They were the people who fashioned the ‘aragalaya’.No one else can claim to have done so . .They were the darlings of the media and an inspiration to the youth in particular. They were generous, helpful and kind to all who joined them. .They were not compromised and used for ulterior ends. People may recall their laudable efforts during the December 2004 tsunami and many candle light and other peaceful protests over the years.

Originally the cry was amusingly Go Gota Go which is a rallying cry at rugby.That was mistaken wit..This changed to ‘Gota Go Home’ even after he had been advised or forced to leave his home, and then ‘Ranil go home’ when Ranil wise cracked ‘I am at home’ .However those who confronted the police (and the military later) in many instances were dangerously violent.They were not representative of the original Aragalists.

The Mirihana protest, peaceful at first ,became violent and then certainly intimidating and threatening when a violent group infiltrated the original protesters, turned off the main road and onto the private road that led to the residence of the former President.Their intent was clearly unlawful and violent and could have included murder ,abduction and arson as subsequently happened with increasing frequency and boldness of the ‘protesters’ ..

What is the response of a house holder if a mob carrying poles, clubs and iron rods assembles by his perimeter wall, baying for his blood? Is he to wait until they scale his wall or should he act in self defence according to the law especially if it is at night? The former course appeared to be the response of, and temporary interpretation of the law by the police.It made the mobs lose fear of the law and its guardians and become reckless.

At the entrance to the Naval Dock Yard Trinco on 10 May 22, TV showed a young woman standing in front of a baying mob , surprisingly in a very mellifluous voice, singing out the refrain, ‘kapapang kapapang’ (cut cut ) and then ominously ‘kayli kayli (pieces pieces).A Sinhala Madame Defarge? The mob were not at a fish market looking to skin fish but were attempting to rush the gates of the Dock Yard, the premier base of the SL Navy and kill the former Prime Minister ..They knew it would have been a step too far had they challenged the Navy.Instead they taunted the Naval guards to entertain the easily cowed and cheap thrilled media instead. The mob attack to storm parliament did not appear to have a single peaceful intention. One JVP leader (not drunk and driving this time) did say they would surround parliament and not allow anyone who did not do what the JVP wanted done,to leave parliament. The stealing of 2 automatic rifles from badly battered troops showed that peace was furthest from their intentions..That was the turning point.The worm had turned. .Have the peaceful protesters now gone underground?Are they cutting off their beards and trimming their hair styles?Are they regrouping? Those 2 rifles must be found quickly. .

That woman in Trinco was not an exception but one of a kind of thousands of unemployable and unemployed rather elderly ‘students’ that launched attacks all over Colombo Fort and surrounding areas, transporting themselves almost magically over long distances while the rest queued 2-4 days for fuel.Who cared whether or how the people got petrol or food or cooking gas?

Why they are/ were called ‘peaceful protesters’ stuns the imagination .They are the same people who switched from one to another barricade encounter.Their leaders remained in the rear, as in 1988/9 when they attempted genocide of the Sinhalese .They have blood on their hands and their thinking is bloody but they masquerade as ‘peaceful’ protesters especially when western media is around. Local media laps them up in mortal fear 24 x 7.So did a western envoy, looking for a political stooge.There are many in SL, if dollars flow.

Were they not screaming obscenities and murderous threats while armed with iron bars and clubs well hidden? Did they at GFG not use force on the leader of the Opposition (9 May 22 – he subsequently dodged contesting the Presidency?!) and gave a former minister, who had produced 2 IRCs at a TV interview in 2019, a taste of the same on 9 July ?

RW correctly asked the US envoy,who declared her admiration if not undying affection for the JVP, whether force was not used by US security officials on the Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol building .He also asked where else in the world would attacks on a President’s office take place without a law enforcement response..He should have also asked what level of force was used on Sadr city protesters in Iraq who were confined in Abu Graib prison and what type of protest the villagers of Mai Lai were doing when Capt Calley (who was never incarcerated as a consequence) and his men murdered and raped the entire village.They killed all the dogs and cats too. South Korean troops were allied to the US forces then to fight the Vietnamese. Or he might have asked why tanks, helicopters and 2 battalions of Air Mobile troops were used to murder hundreds and wound thousands in Gwanju South Korea in 1980. Chung added a caveat.,She said the time was not right just now for strong arm tactics.So when will that correct time be and who will say so ? Is she trying to outdo Mr.Dixit?

Unsurprisingly no regional country criticized SL Thank you brothers and sisters.· The SL Police have acted with sufficient if not overwhelming restraint quoting law and doing their best to solve the continuing impasse, peacefully.They, after negotiating and pleading with the recalcitrant ‘protesters’ for 3 days, used only minimum if any force to execute a written order of the Fort magistrate to vacate the Presidential office which they had trespassed .That was their duty. Brutal force by police is most evident not in SL but where ‘Black Lives matter’ as the whole world knows.

Who set fire and destroyed RW’s house together with those of his brothers and his library and the dogs? Why were RWs brothers’ houses termed ‘neighbours’ houses by the media? Was the whole family a target . Were the attackers a foreign legion or the spearhead troops of the protesters?.Why does the JVP deny gleefully that it was they that did it? Are they pointing fingers at the FSP as everyone else does? Which lunatic calls the FSP ‘peaceful’? What was a leading opposition politician’s sister adding to the the baying by the mob?

How does one distinguish between ‘peaceful’ and violent’ in these circumstances? Has one to wait until foul deeds including murder and arson take place? The law clearly states that once a threat manifests itself, action according to the law, including use of force, is permissibleThe most important question is whether,after a corrupt, ineffective, weak, disgraced etc Govt fails, even as a global recession sets in,and the Ukraine war continues ,is it to be replaced, out of fear of retaliation, by local experts in terror ? Where is the cash coming from to steady SL? According to Sajith P in May 22, Saudi Arabia promised him oil.He has not repeated this very silly statement.The IMF is the only hope SL has. SL should ensure China chips in by restructuring her loans and with out right grants in addition to what India has unhesitatingly and generously given. SL has a very delicate balancing act to perform to ensure our historical Asian benefactors continue to help.She has to be sincere in all she does She should never try to play one against the other.That would be suicide . It will however be difficult for the West not to try to exploit SL at this time.
Pray for SL less the politicians, media, BASL and western imperialists who think they are the reincarnation of Gods.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Coping with Batalanda’s emergence to centre stage

Published

on

Bimal Ratnayake tabling the Batalanda report in Parliament recently.

by Jehan Perera

The Batalanda Commission report which goes into details of what happened during the JVP insurrection of 1987-89 has become the centre of public attention. The controversy has long been a point of contention and a reminder of the country’s troubled past and entrenched divisions that still exist. The events that occurred at Batalanda during the violent suppression of the JVP-led insurgency, remain a raw wound, as seen in the sudden resurfacing of the issue. The scars of violence and war still run deep. At a time when the country is grappling with pressing challenges ranging from economic recovery to social stability, there is a need to keep in focus the broader goal of unity for long-term peace and prosperity. But the ghosts of the past need also to be put to rest without continuing to haunt the present and future.

Grisly accounts of what transpired at Batalanda now fill the social media even in the Tamil media, though Tamils were not specifically targeted at that time. There was then a ceasefire between the government and LTTE. The Indo-Lanka Accord had just been signed and the LTTE were fighting the Indian peacekeeping army. The videos that are now circulating on social media would show the Tamil people that they were not the only ones at the receiving end of counter-terrorist measures. The Sinhalese were in danger then, as it was a rebellion of Sinhalese against the state. Sinhalese youth had to be especially careful.

It appears that former president Ranil Wickremesinghe was caught unprepared by the questions from a team from Al Jazeera television. The answers he gave, in which he downplayed the significance of the Batalanda Commission report have been viewed differently, depending on the perspective of the observer. He has also made a statement in which he has rejected the report. The report, which demands introspection, referred to events that had taken place 37 years earlier. But the ghosts of the past have returned. After the issue has come to the fore, there are many relatives and acquaintances of the victims from different backgrounds who are demanding justice and offering to come forward to give evidence of what they had witnessed. They need closure after so many years.

MORE POLARISATION

The public reaction to the airing of the Al Jazeera television programme is a reminder that atrocities that have taken place cannot be easily buried. The government has tabled the Batalanda Commission report in parliament and hold a two-day debate on it. The two days were to be consecutive but now the government has decided to space them out over two months. There is reason to be concerned about what transpires in the debate. The atrocities that took place during the JVP insurrection involved multiple parties. Batalanda was not the only interrogation site or the only torture chamber. There were many others. Former president Ranil Wickremesinghe was not the only prominent protagonist in the events that transpired at that time.

The atrocities of the late 1980s were not confined to one location, nor were they the responsibility of a single individual or group. The JVP engaged in many atrocities and human rights violations. In addition to members of the former government and military who engaged in counter-terrorism operations there were also other groups that engaged both in self-defence and mayhem. These included members of left political parties who were targeted by the JVP and who formed their own para-military groups. Some of the leaders went on to become ministers in succeeding governments and even represented Sri Lanka at international human rights forums. Even members of the present government will not be able to escape the fallout of the debate over the Batalanda Commission report.

If the debate becomes a battleground for assigning blame rather than seeking solutions, it could have far-reaching consequences for Sri Lanka’s social and political stability. Economic recovery, governance reform, and development require stability and cooperation. The present storm caused by the Batalanda Commission report, and the prospects for increased polarisation and hatred do not bode well for the country. Rather than engaging in potentially divisive debates that could lead to further entrenchment of opposing narratives, Sri Lanka would be better served by a structured and impartial approach to truth-seeking and reconciliation.

NATIONAL HEALING

Earlier this month at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, the government rejected the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights assertion that the external evidence gathering unit would continue to collect evidence on human rights violations in Sri Lanka. This evidence gathering unit has a mandate to collect information on a wide range of human rights violations including intimidation and killings of journalists but with a focus on the human rights violations and war crimes during the course of the LTTE war and especially at its end. The government’s position has been that it is determined to deal with human rights challenges including reconciliation through domestic processes.

Addressing the High-Level Segment of the 58th Regular Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva in February this year, Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath said: “The contours of a truth and reconciliation framework, will be further discussed with the broadest possible cross section of stakeholders, before operationalisation to ensure a process that has the trust of all Sri Lankans. Our aim is to make the domestic mechanisms credible and sound within the constitutional framework. This will include strengthening the work towards a truth and reconciliation commission empowered to investigate acts of violence caused by racism and religious extremism that give rise to tensions within Sri Lankan society.”

The concept of a truth and reconciliation commission was first broached in 2015 by then prime minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s government. In 2019 after winning the presidential elections, former president Gotabaya Rajapaksa too saw merit in the idea, but neither of these two leaders had the commitment to ensure that the process was completed. Promoting reconciliation in Sri Lanka among divergent political actors with violent political pasts requires a multi-faceted approach that blends political, social, and psychological strategies.

Given the country’s complex history of armed conflict, ethnic tensions, and political polarisation, the process must be carefully designed to build trust, address grievances, and create a shared vision for the future. A truth and reconciliation process as outlined in Geneva by the government, which has teeth in it for both punishment and amnesty, can give the country the time and space in which to uncover the painful truths and the path to national healing.

Continue Reading

Features

Challenging hierarchy? Student grievance mechanisms at state universities

Published

on

Our universities are characterized by hierarchies. They manifest in formal and informal ways, reinforcing power asymmetries based on class, ethnicity and gender, and placing inordinate authority in those with higher status. In medicine, a ‘hidden curriculum’ orients undergraduates to hierarchies from their early days in training, placing professors over lecturers, ‘clinical’ over ‘non-clinical’ teachers, consultants over medical officers, and so on. While hierarchies are needed at universities (and hospitals) to streamline decision-making, dysfunctional hierarchies create unhealthy learning environments and a culture of fear that discourages students from asking questions and voicing concerns. They also legitimize mistreatment, humiliation, bullying, and other abuses of power. A few months ago, when I invited a medical student to participate in a session on ragging and harassment for incoming students, she asked me (quoted with permission), “What’s the point of doing a programme like that if ragging happens in official level by teachers with everyone knowing, Madam?” Her question led me to explore the avenues available at state universities for undergraduates to counter abuses of power by teachers and university administrations.

What can undergrads do?

The University Grants Commission (UGC) and all state universities have established mechanisms for reporting complaints of ragging and sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV). The UGC’s online portal entertains complaints on “all forms of ragging; sexual harassment; sexual or gender based violence; threats and intimidation; bullying; and harassment.” Complaint procedures for ragging and SGBV are described in detail on the websites of each university, as well as the websites of some faculties. Students may also take any complaints directly to the Dean, student counsellors, academic advisors/mentors, and teachers. In addition, many faculties have portals to submit online complaints on ragging and harassment, while others rely on informal mechanisms, like complaint boxes, to protect anonymity. While these systems are used by students to some extent, rarely do they function as checks and balances against abuses of power by teachers and others at the pinnacle of the university hierarchy.

Anyone who works at a state university would know that students (and the university community more broadly) have very little confidence in existing complaint and grievance procedures. While the minority of incidents that get reported may make it to the inquiry stage, the complaints are often withdrawn under threat and intimidation from the authorities or simply brushed under the carpet. More recently, certain universities and faculties have worked towards establishing formal student grievance procedures outside the SGBV/ragging reporting systems.

Newer grievance mechanisms

Sabaragamuwa University appears to be the only university with a university-wide policy for grievance redressal. The protocol described in the standard operating procedure (SOP) requires that students submit their complaint in writing to the Dean or Deputy Senior Student Counsellor of the relevant faculty. On receiving a complaint, a Committee will be set up by the Dean/Deputy Senior Student Counsellor to conduct an inquiry. The Committee will comprise five senior staff members, including “two independent members (one representing another department, and one may represent the Gender Equity and Equality Cell of the Faculty where relevant)…” The SOP further states that “any student can oppose to have his/her mentor and/or any faculty member to be in the five-person team handling his/her issue.” However, this information is available only to the discerning student who is able to navigate the university’s complex website, hit the Centre for Quality Assurance tab, view the list of documents and click ‘best practices’.

Several faculties of medicine appear to have introduced grievance mechanisms. The Grievance Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Colombo, considers complaints regarding “a decision or action that is perceived to adversely affect the grievant in her or his professional academic capacity.” The procedure requires that students submit the grievance in writing to the Dean. The Committee comprises “persons who are not current employees of the Faculty of Medicine” and the complainant may request the presence of a member of the Medical Students’ Welfare Society. The Faculty of Medicine, Ruhuna, implements a grievance policy that is more expansive in scope, covering concerns related to “organizational changes in the teaching and learning environment, decisions by academic staff members affecting individuals or groups of students, changes in the content or structure of academic programmes, changes in the nature and quality of teaching and assessment, supervision of students undertaking research projects, authorship and intellectual property, [and the] quality of student services and access to university facilities and resources.” While the policy notes that incidents related to harassment, discrimination and bullying, come under the jurisdiction of the university’s SGBV policy, it does not entertain complaints about examinations. The medical faculty of the University of Sri Jayewardenepura (SJP), has an online grievance system that investigates complaints related to “any physical, psychological, academic or any other problem related to the University life”. The system commits to maintaining confidentiality, pledging that “information will not be divulged to members outside the Student Grievances Committee without the student’s permission.”

Gaps in existing systems

The university-wide SGBV/ragging reporting system could be used to address harassment and intimidation of all kinds. Sadly, however, undergraduates appear to be unaware of these possibilities or reluctant to use them. It is unclear as to whether the newer grievance mechanisms at universities and faculties have managed to achieve the desired outcome. Are they used by students and do they lead to constructive changes in the learning environment or do they simply exist to tick the check box of quality assurance? None of the websites report on the number of cases investigated or the kinds of redressal measures taken. If these mechanisms are to be used by students, they must fulfill certain basic requirements.

First and foremost, all students and staff must be made aware of existing grievance mechanisms. Policies and procedures cannot simply be included under a tab buried in the faculty/university website, but need to be placed front and centre. Students should know what steps the institution will take to ensure confidentiality and how those who come forward, including witnesses, will be protected. They should be confident that swift action will be taken when any breaches of confidentiality occur. Inquiries need to be conducted without delay and complainants kept informed of the actions taken. All in all, universities and/or faculties must commit to ensuring integrity and fairness in the grievance process.

Second, the independence of inquiries must be guaranteed. Some universities/faculties have SOPs that require the inclusion of ‘independent’ members in grievance committees—members who are currently non-faculty, academics from other faculties and/or student representatives. Whether the inclusion of non-faculty members would be sufficient to safeguard independence is questionable in fields like medicine where there is a tendency to cover up professional misconduct at all levels. Permitting complainants to have a say in the makeup of the inquiry committee may help to increase confidence in the system. It may be advisable for inquiries to be handled by ombudspersons or others who do not have a stake in the outcome, rather than by academic staff who are part of the university hierarchy.

Third, grievance mechanisms must address the very real possibility of retaliation from university administrations and teachers. The TOR of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Ruhuna, states that the Committee must ensure “students do not suffer any victimization or discrimination as a result of raising complaints or grievances,” but provides no guidance on how this might be accomplished. Any grievance mechanism must address what recourse to action complainants (and witnesses) have in the event of retaliation. At present, there are no regulations in place to ensure that persons alleged of misconduct are not involved in examination procedures. Neither do universities provide any guarantee that complainants’ academic/employment prospects will not be compromised by coming forward. This is especially concerning in medicine where practical assessments of clinical skills and interview-based examinations (viva) are common, and those at higher rank are usually trainers at the postgraduate level.

Going forward

Student grievance mechanisms provide a structured process for students to voice concerns and seek redress when they feel they have been treated unfairly or unjustly by university staff or policies. The mechanisms currently in place at state universities appear to be weak and insufficient. The UGC could call for universities to participate in a consultative process aimed at developing a policy on handling student grievances in ways that promote fairness in academic matters, faculty conduct, and administration at state universities. While such a policy could foster supportive learning environments, build trust between university administrations and students, and protect students from bullying, intimidation and harassment, it must be accompanied by efforts to address and undo dysfunctional hierarchies within our universities.

(Ramya Kumar is attached to the Department of Community and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jaffna.)

Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.

By Ramya Kumar

Continue Reading

Features

Big scene for Suzi… at oktoberfest

Published

on

Colombo…Suzi with a fan, from Australia (L) / With bassist Benjy who checked out Suzi’s performance at a five-star venue in Colombo (R)

The months literally keep flying and, before long, we will be celebrating Oktoberfest.

In our scene, Oktoberfest is looked forward to by many and the five-star venues, especially, create the ideal kind of atmosphere for the celebration of this event, held in late September and early October.

Suzi Croner, who was in town last month (February), is already contracted to do the Oktoberfest scene at a popular five-star venue, in the city.

She says she will be performing six consecutive nights, from 23rd to 28th September, along with a band from Germany.

Suzi’s scene in Switzerland

According to Suzi, the organisers have indicated that they are looking forward to welcoming around 1,500 Oktoberfest enthusiasts on all six days the festivities are held.

“I’m really looking forward to doing the needful, especially with a German band, and I know, for sure, it’s going to be awesome.”

In fact, Suzi, of the band Friends’ fame, and now based in Switzerland, indicated that she never expected to come to her land of birth for the second time, this year.

“After my trip to Sri Lanka, in February, I thought I would check things out again next year, but I’m so happy that I don’t have to wait that long to see my fans, music lovers and friends for the second time, in 2025.”

Suzi spent 11 amazing days in Sri Lanka, in February, performing six nights at a five-star venue in Colombo, in addition to doing the ‘Country & Western Nite’ scene, at the Ramada, and an unscheduled performance, as well.

Suzi Croner: Colombo here I come…in September

Her next much-looked-forward to event is ‘Country Night,’ Down Under.

It will be her second appearance at this ‘Country Night’ dance and music lovers, in Melbourne, in particular, are waiting eagerly to give Suzi a rousing welcome.

Suzi’s bubbly personality has made her a hit wherever she performs.

In her hometown of Spreitenbach, in Switzerland, she is a big draw-card at many local events.

Suzi was the frontline vocalist for the group Friends, decades ago, and this outfit, too, had a huge following in the local scene, with a fan club that had over 1,500 members.

The band was based abroad and travelled to Sri Lanka, during the festive season, to keep their fans entertained, and it was, invariably, a full house for all their performances in the scene here.

Continue Reading

Trending