The recently telecast Channel 4 documentary on ‘Killing Fields of Sri Lanka’ sheds no new light (despite claims to the contrary), in terms of groundbreaking evidence, regarding the incidents related to the end of the war in Sri Lanka.  If anything, it will seek to entrench already hardened attitudes and decrease the ever reducing space for dialogue and reconciliation.

From the government’s perspective, it will seek to discredit the documentary as fake as it feeds into the insecurity that it surrounds itself with, of a perception that the west has been influenced by a highly successful pro LTTE lobby.  The end result will be the securing of its ‘credibility’ especially as a ‘victim of an external conspiracy’ consequently rallying the people’s sympathy, thereby making any genuine attempt to hold the government accountable for anything fruitless.

On the other side, for the pro LTTE lobby (largely represented by their supporters in the UK, US and Canada) this will be a ‘vindication’ of their claims regarding the Government and its conduct of the war, thereby serving to boost their movement and support whilst ignoring the part that they have played in fund raising and supporting the LTTE (despite the proscription of the LTTE as a terrorist group). This has been helped by a fairly sympathetic media (angered at being excluded from the front lines by the Sri Lankan Government) which so far has tended to focus on the government’s part in the end of the war rather than also holding these representatives in the West, accountable for the crimes committed by the LTTE.

It is this decrease in the space to explore mutual understandings that lie at the heart of most people’s disapproval of moves like Channel 4 or the UN to talk about War Crimes. At the end of the day, the repercussions will not be felt by the Diaspora in the Global North or even by the Government.  It will be felt by the ordinary people in Sri Lanka who have to live with the consequences.  For those of us who are active in trying to work on post conflict reconciliation, it is not about defending the indefensible.   We are not here to deny or justify abuses. War is never just or civil, even when it is fought against a proscribed terrorist organisation.  There is no excuse for abuses to be meted out. But the question remains how, who and when should accountability take place?  Is it when the wounds are still fresh or is it when there has been enough time for healing to have taken place? Equally when accountability is demanded it has to be done against all responsible and for all crimes.  Whilst blame is very often vociferously laid at the feet of the Sri Lankan government for its actions, nothing is said with the same intensity about the atrocities committed by the LTTE such as: the ethnic cleansing of 100,000 Muslims from the north (who still live in refugee camps today in the north west of Sri Lanka, with no one voicing any concern about them); the assassination of key political and intellectual leaders (of all ethnicities)  or the forcible recruitment of child soldiers.  The reports do not carry any discussion of how the LTTE combatants mingled with civilians and forcibly conscripted them to fight in the final stages, as has been documented in an  interview given by a former Tamil National Parliamentarian who was trapped inside the war zone during this period.  This former Member of Parliament said that he saw people being shot and killed by the LTTE.  No explanation is given about the fact that during the heaviest of fighting, the LTTE also moved its heavy artillery positions near the no fire zones and within the hospital compounds and used them. The Tamils who objected to this move were brutally shot dead which has been corroborated by the war victims and even former LTTE cadres and can be viewed on You Tube.  Nor do they discuss the phenomenon that Mark Meadow’s 2010 book ‘Tea Time with Terrorists’, describes of how  former LTTE fighters have explained LTTE tactics such as “LTTE cadres dressing up in Sri Lankan army uniforms, then firing at unarmed civilians to put false blame on the army”.

The truth of the matter is that the conflict in Sri Lanka is not black and white. The truth is somewhat blurred in between. Unfortunately, in the midst of this flurry of interest once again in what happened in Sri Lanka in 2009, the real discussion is becoming sidelined, for whilst it is important to look at the past, it is vital that an eye is placed towards the future at all levels, not just political.  How can Sri Lanka learn from the mistakes of the past that sidelined the minorities and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians? Successive governments have always hid behind the pretext of winning the war and defeating the LTTE militarily without addressing some of the fundamental key issues concerning minorities. Now with the defeat of the LTTE, there is a real opportunity to address the legitimate grievances of the minorities to ensure that the country is not subject to a repeat of the conflict ever again.  The questions becomes, how can  Sri Lanka, despite more than sixty years of independence, develop a constitutional framework that will satisfy the aspirations of all its citizens and deliver an environment of peace and harmony? Moreover at a grass roots levels, how can people work towards reconciliation between polarised communities (growing increasingly suspicious of each other thereby encouraging inward looking clannish tendencies)  and ensure an environment of peace, justice and equity that can hold politicians accountable for good governance?  Like it or not, it is at the grass roots level where ideologies take root and prosper or fester and also where consequences are felt, either way.

Those involved in conflict resolution and peace building will often talk about a period of healing in order for accountability to take place.  The Bloody Sunday acknowledgement by the British Government took 38 years after a 12 year investigation.  Poland and Germany still have strained relations incurred during the Second World War.  The period of healing for Sri Lanka is still in a baby stage of 2 years yet is not being addressed. As it stands it is doubtless felt that such endeavours will in fact damage efforts being undertaken to achieve reconciliation.

What is critical for Sri Lanka is the rebuilding of trust which can only be rebuilt when a space is created for effective dialogue and understanding.  Rebuilding trust is about honouring unity and celebrating diversity, working towards equity and justice and ensuring the eradication of social prejudices in building a collective identity.  Sri Lanka needs the space for this to happen.  It needs time for its people to go through the healing process.  Its people need to come up with their own locally developed solutions.

Transparency, accountability and social justice are the pillars of a mature democratic society.  Sri Lanka’s journey is still very early in trying to achieve this, but nevertheless it has started.  Accountability will come in time once people are ready to not allow the past to become a ball and chain for the future.  The release of this documentary and other reports provides unwarranted distraction from the main issues that the government (and any government in a post conflict country) should be held accountable for including: steps taken towards reconciliation, stemming the rising cost of living, tackling corruption and trying to ensure law and order.   By demanding it from outside, it also abrogates responsibility from all the stakeholders at all levels within Sri Lanka to ensure that seeds are planted at the grass roots that will not fester into another conflict. This is possibly the biggest disservice we do to those people who died (on both sides) of the conflict for something they believed in or were forced into due to other’s selfishness.

###

Note on author: Amjad Saleem was previously the Sri Lankan country director of British based NGO Muslim Aid, where he oversaw post tsunami and post conflict reconstruction and rehabilitation. He was at the fore front of relief efforts for the current crisis which saw 300,000 people being displaced as the war came to an end in Sri Lanka.

His main interest is in building bridges between communities to help further respect, understanding and acceptance. He was instrumental in developing a unique partnership in Sri Lanka between Muslim Aid and UMCOR (United Methodist Committee on Relief), based in the States, which was heralded by the Commonwealth Foundation as the ‘missing link’ between interfaith dialogue and grass roots action. Using this partnership, Amjad was instrumental in bringing religious and civil society leaders together in December 2008 to discuss real practical ways of reconciliation post conflict in Sri Lanka. Amjad is currently consulting with the Congress of Religions and The Methodist Church in Sri Lanka to establish an Interfaith Coalition for Peace to undertake practical projects using spirituality as a resource for reconciliation and rehabilitation.

Amjad is currently working as Head of Communications for The Cordoba Foundation, an independent policy, research and public relations think tank based in London promoting intercultural dialogue and positive coexistence among civilisations, ideas and people , and advocating dialogue and action to promote understanding and acceptance of inter-communal and inter-religious issues in Britain, Europe, US and beyond.

Similar Posts:

• ‘Heal Lanka’ by Ras Ceylon
• Human rights: Hackneyed or heightened in post-war Sri Lanka?
• Defeating the result and the cause of war – Role of the mass movement
• World Cup cricket aiding reconciliation in Sri Lanka: Fact or fiction?
• Finding the Middle Ground

Channel 4 broadcast Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields tonight in the UK, which it describes as “a hard-hitting investigation into the final weeks of the Sri Lankan civil war, featuring devastating video evidence of horrific war crimes.” Sri Lanka’s response to the video has been unsurprisingly ham-fisted, but already, the video is having an impact internationally. As noted by Bloomberg, the UK’s Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt, after watching the video, urged Sri Lanka to initiate an “independent, thorough and credible investigation” into allegations of war crimes.

Twitter provides one measure of how the video was received. Viewers were encouraged by Channel 4 to tweet with #killingfields, and the responses from those who saw the documentary just after it was first broadcast on public television are quite revealing.

If the Twitter search widget below doesn’t load, click here for an RSS feed generated live from tweets tagged with #killingfields, or click here to access Twitter’s search page directly.

Similar Posts:

• Live micro-blogging of President’s speech in Parliament today
• Giving the middle finger: Sri Lanka’s conflicting responses to war crimes allegations
• Live micro-blogging of President’s speech at the National Victory Parade
• Colombo’s iconic Castle Hotel: A photo portrait from Moving Images
• The celebrations in Colombo after Prabhakaran’s demise

Image from Virakesari Online

Great controversy and concern surrounds the ‘leadership’ training programme designed by the Ministry of Defence for under graduate students, conducted in around 28 military installations around the country. As the Young Researchers Collective recently noted on Groundviews,

“Although the government has stated that this will be a leadership training program rather than a military training program, it has conceded that the military will be involved in a number of aspects of the program. Students have also been informed that this training is “mandatory” for university entrance, though there now appears to be a great deal of confusion with regards to this provision as Government officials have issued a series of contradicting statements. These decisions have also been challenged by many students, rights groups, student unions, teachers’ unions and academics who have raised a number of concerns about the way in which this program has been conceived and implemented. This issue has also exacerbated a worsening crisis in local universities as the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA) are also in the midst of trade union action.”

Other civil society groups have also raised grave concerns over this training which is essentially the indoctrination of a militaristic Sinhala Buddhist ideology. The Friday Forum for example notes,

“The curriculum of the training programme obtained by the Friday Forum after some effort reveals extremely problematic aspects. No mention is made of the authority responsible for the curriculum but a prominent photograph of the Defence Secretary on the cover of the study guide suggests authorship by the Defence establishment.”

The Friday Forum goes on to say,

“What is more problematic is the content of the module on history and national heritage. The topics are, in order, the arrival of the Aryans, foreign invasions, (who the foreigners are is not clear) and the development of Sinhalese kingdoms. “National heritage” focuses exclusively on prominent cultural symbols of the majority Sinhala community such as Sigiriya, the Temple of the Tooth and the Aukana Buddha statue with none from other communities. Subjecting new university entrants who may well become future leaders of this country to a course which focuses exclusively on the majority community, undermines all the official statements on national reconciliation after three decades of civil strife. If this is an officially sanctioned method of national reconciliation what hopes do we have for a peaceful conflict free future in this country?”

In a cogent essay on the training course, Lemek notes on this site,

“The political motivations of the leadership programme are quite clear when we consider that it is essentially a retributive reaction to the student protests that occurred in October and November 2010. It also provides an opportunity for the government to restrict the political influence of opposition parties within the university system and student politics, which presents a potential force of mobilisation against the government.”

Responding to the justification of the programme by those opposed to ragging, Lemek goes on to aver,

“The other issue that has received much attention is the problem of ‘ragging,’ which has developed into an institutionalised practise within a majority of universities. Perhaps a greater tragedy is the complicity of lecturers and other university officials who in complete indifference accept ragging as a ‘rite of passage’ within a hierarchical system of senior dominance over freshers/juniors. It is sufficiently amusing – in consideration of the egalitarian pretence of boot camp society – that the instruction of an alternative hierarchical system with a similar call for subordination is the solution to ragging. Is it exceedingly ambitious to request the chancellors and senior lecturers of universities to set about establishing intelligent administration in order address the issue by expelling students who are guilty of physical abuse? “

This is not just a domestic issue anymore. Capturing the concern over the substance of the leadership programme and the manner in which it is conducted, the Hindustan Times notes,

“Be it Mahinda Chintanaya, or what the government’s policy doctrine is know as, or name stadiums after the President or print currency notes with his photo, there is worrying trend to blitzkrieg the Lankan population with images and words about the ruling family. If his brother is having some fun, why should Gotabhaya miss out? Secondly, to focus only on one community in history is manipulating it. Though I haven’t seen the history module, it’s clear from Friday Forum’s statement that the module will far from help in reconciling the country emerging from years of civil war.”

To date, no one outside of the students who have undergone this training have seen the course material. We were emailed copies of the manuals and timetables in all three languages, plus copies of the covering letters the students received, which clearly state that the training is compulsory, with no exceptions.

Leadership Training – English Covering Letter

See this letter in fullscreen here.

Training Manual (English Version)

See the manual in fullscreen here.

Training Manual (Sinhala Version)

See the Sinhala version of the manual in fullscreen here.

Leadership Training – Tamil Covering Letter

See fullscreen version of the letter here.

Leadership Training Manual (Tamil Version)

See fullscreen version of the Tamil manual here.

Leadership Training Timetable – Detailed Version

See fullscreen version of detailed timetable here.

Leadership Training Timetable – Concise Version

See concise version of the timetable here.

Similar Posts:

• Sinhala and Tamil translations of UN Panel’s report on accountability
• An elephantine gestation: UN Panel’s report on accountability in Sri Lanka released
• Launch of Moving Images: Stunning documentaries and photo essays from Sri Lanka
• Mojo for mayhem or source of serendipity? Sri Lankan Army’s model to defeat terrorism
• Watch Moving Images at Kandy International Film Festival (KIFF)

Image credit Sunday Leader

The 18th Amendment, we were told, would make the President more accountable to Parliament. The Editorial of the Sunday Observer noted back in the day,

By making it mandatory for the President to attend Parliament at least once in three months to answer questions by MPs, the 18th Amendment has not only made a vital link between the Executive and the Legislature, but has also made the President answerable to Parliament. Had President Rajapaksa given thought to dictatorship even in his wildest dreams, he would never have decided to attend Parliament once in three months. Despite being elected twice to the high office, President Rajapaksa strongly believes in parliamentary democracy and is keen to attend Parliament and follow proceedings whenever time permits. Isn’t this characteristic of a truly people’s leader who firmly believes in the power of the ballot?

Emphasis ours. But has the President in fact entertained any questions from MPs in Parliament since the 18th Amendment was passed in late 2010? And precisely when has he attended Parliament, and for what purpose?

Click here to view a larger version of this timeline, where you can also see it a list of events.

As far as we can find, the President last addressed Parliament in March 2011. There is no record that he entertained any questions. The timeline above reflects both the genesis of the heinous 18th Amendment and also the occasions mainstream press reported that the President attended / “visited” Parliament.

It was no easy task to compile this. Only a handful ordinary citizens would have the expertise to search for this information online, or elsewhere. There is no easy record retrieval of the President’s attendance in Parliament on its official website. But what is immediately obvious when the scattered media reports are taken as a whole is that the 18th Amendment has in no way at all contributed to a more accountable Executive. The incumbent for example possibly waltzes into Parliament ceremoniously to riotous greetings by those in government ranks, warms a special seat reserved for him as of November last year, possibly smiles benignly at government MPs, twitches a tad when the Leader of the Opposition speaks, twirls his moustache once or twice, adjusts his satakaya, winks and nods knowingly at his blood brothers and summarily leaves, to a standing ovation.

If this sounds like absurd caricature, the following report in the Daily News of the President’s last visit to Parliament is worth reading,

President Mahinda Rajapaksa paid a visit to Parliament yesterday evening, respecting the Constitution of Sri Lanka. According to the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, the President of the country has to attend the sittings of Parliament once in three months. President Mahinda Rajapaksa arrived in Parliament around 2.30 pm and occupied the seat allocated for him in the House next to the Prime Minister’s seat. When the President entered the House, government and opposition members rose and welcomed him thumping on their desks. When President Mahinda Rajapaksa arrived, Speaker Chamal Rajapaksa was in the Chair and the condolence vote on Minister Nissanka Wijeratne was taken up. President Rajapaksa stayed in the House for a short while and left.

Even The Island coverage of this visit doesn’t include a single question the President had to face from MPs. Very much ‘visits’ to Parliament then, as the titles of the news articles suggest. What then of the MPs who staunchly supported the 18th Amendment saying that it would strengthen the accountability of the Executive? In a lofty speech for an essentially expedient end, the Rauff Hakeem, MP from the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) noted,

“And, in helping President Mahinda Rajapaksa to secure an additional term of office, we hope that the enticement of a third term will compel him to seek the mantle of a sincere statesman rather than being remembered merely as a clever politician.”

Has Mr. Hakeem asked the President a single question even during his cameo appearances in Parliament? If not, why not? Where and how is the enhanced accountability of the Executive demonstrated in practice from September 2010 to June this year? Who in Parliament and amongst us can remember Basil Rajapaksa’s statement noting that attendance of the President in Parliament would be further strengthened by the 18th Amendment? And what of the government’s most loquacious apologist, Rajiva Wijesinha’s assertion during the 18th Amendment debates,

“I would have wished too Mr Speaker that this first step in ensuring greater accountability in the President, by making appearances in Parliament mandatory, had also specified that he would be required to answer questions relative to his executive functions. I believe this is intended, given that His Excellency the current President enjoys Parliamentary debate, but we may have in some distant future a less sociable President without communicative skills who might not fulfil this provision in the spirit in which it is intended.”

Emphasis ours. But it’s not just Messrs. Hakeem and Wijesinha. What about other MPs, the heaps of political commentators, senior Sri Lankan diplomats and the range of voices on this site itself who championed the 18th Amendment? Where are their voices of concern over what is quite demonstrably a farce?

Much of this was known well in advance. As Kalana Senaratne notes in the Sunday Leader back in September 2010, just days after the Amendment was passed,

“Firstly, the provision in the 18th Amendment which states that the President shall “attend Parliament once in every three months” does not essentially suggest that the President will be more accountable to Parliament or the people. One still does not know what the President ought to do after attending Parliament. It is said that he has the right to “address and send messages to Parliament.” But then, will he exercise that right? What if he decides to simply attend Parliament, and watch parliamentary proceedings where his message will be read out by the Prime Minister? If real accountability was to be ensured, he should actively engage in parliamentary proceedings and be involved in some form of active debate and discussion. The 18th Amendment does not do this.”

Kalana’s singular prescience aside, the larger question remains as to why the clarion voices who ostensibly supported the 18th amendment entirely out of principle and a love for democracy are, in the face of what is actually an on-going farce, completely silent. Therein lies a story that needs to be told.

Similar Posts:

• Hansard on 18th Amendment debate, 8 September 2010
• Exclusive video: Parliamentary debate and objections to 18th Amendment
• A timeline of duplicity: Promises to abolish the Executive Presidency
• “Sound is no substitute for argument”: Exclusive video of TNA MP M.A. Sumanthiran’s speech in parliament against 18th Amendment
• Abolition or reform of Executive Presidency in Sri Lanka?

We are very pleased to announce that films from Moving Images will be part of the first Kandy International Film Festival (KIFF). Though the official schedule is still being finalised, we have been informed by the organisers that Moving Images will be screened from 4 – 6pm on Saturday, 25th at the Kandy City Centre. A moderated discussion will follow. The selection of films will be from A Lost White Tribe: The Eurasians of Sri Lanka by Menika van der Poorten and Koothu, kerosene and paper: portraits of resilience by Kannan Arunasalam.

Please join us. Ticketing information for KIFF can be accessed here.

The Kandy Film Festival will be a four-day celebration of global cinema, with a special focus on Asian film and upcoming talent, in the UNESCO world heritage city of Kandy, Sri Lanka. Against a stunning background of gardens, hilltops and cultural architecture, the Festival will showcase an exciting program of films celebrating diverse techniques, styles and themes relevant to the region. As noted on its website, the Festival is designed to generate an inclusive and tolerant environment to allow a close-knit and passionate artistic community, including Sri Lankan students and youth, to engage in debate, dialogue and be inspired by the power of film to understand the human experience.

Moving Images is a series of stunning short-form documentary and narrated photographic portraits on facets of life in post-war Sri Lanka. These high-definition productions, the country’s first, range from portraits of resilience from the war ravaged Jaffna and reflections on the Eurasian community by the last surviving Eurasians themselves to fascinating lives in Colombo invisible even to most who live and work in the city.

Some of the comments we received after the premiere of Moving Images in Colombo were,

• “moving images is FAN TAS TIC. Please convey my congratulations to those involved in it—they tend to be online acquaintances or friends of friends or people I follow on Twitter. Thinking of Kannan Arunasalam, Sharni and Tari Wickremaratne particularly. How marvelous it looks. And, of course, to you! It looks spectacular. And as always, I am amazed at how much you accomplish.”
• “I love Moving Images. Inspiring, and beautifully produced. Congrats. We’re gearing up for some relatively similar stuff here, but perhaps not so classy, more mainstream.”
• “A sincere thank you for last evening. There was certainly something to say and not merely something to show!”
• “Absolutely f******* fabulous.”
• “I’ve had a look through a lot of the videos that you and Kannan have put up – this has immense value and I’m so glad something like this exists. They are all just great stories and beautifully shot.”
• “Groundviews has been producing some great content in the last couple of years and the ‘Moving Images’ is super stuff. Congratulations! “
• “Looking at kerosene nearly brought tears to my eyes. This is my Jaffna.”
• “Beautiful and evocative images. Look forward to seeing more stories soon.”
• “excellent pictures.”

Of particular note is that the co-editor for Groundviews, Nigel Nugawela and the producer of A Lost White Tribe: The Eurasians of Sri Lanka, Menika van der Poorten, both hail from Kandy. Nigel will lead the moderated discussion after the screening of the films.

Trailers for the productions follow along with the flyer announcing the launch of the content back in April this year.

Similar Posts:

• Launch of Moving Images: Stunning documentaries and photo essays from Sri Lanka
• Kerosene: How does a taxi driver take the sick to the hospital when there’s no fuel around?
• A Lost White Tribe: The Eurasians of Sri Lanka
• Paper: The incredible story of Uthayan in Jaffna
• Koothu: Theatre and leprosy in Jaffna