Internal Armed Conflicts, Humanitarian Laws and the Curious Transformation of Dr. Jayantha Dhanapala by Kalana Senaratne on Groundviews flagged a number of pertinent questioning arising from the media reportage of Jayantha Dhanapala’s submission to the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) recently.

On our Facebook page as well as through numerous emails sent to the Editors, many present at this session of the LLRC said that media reports, including those on the Ministry of Defence website of Jayantha Dhanapala’s submission were extremely biased and inaccurate. We publish below a response to these reports by Jayantha Dhanapala as well as his written submission to the LLRC.

Download this letter as a PDF here.

OUTLINE OF SUBMISSION MADE BY JAYANTHA DHANAPALA TO COMMISSION ON LESSONS LEARNT AND RECONCILIATION

1. My experience as a career diplomat in the Sri Lanka Foreign Service from 1965-97, and in particular my period as Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations Office in Geneva from 1984-87 and Ambassador to the USA from 1995-97, are relevant to the challenges of representing a country in conflict and defending it against allegations of human rights violations. In addition my service as an international civil servant with the United Nations for ten years provided me with a multilateral perspective which will enable me to help the Commission understand the workings of an international organization in its relations with a member state. Finally my tenure as Secretary-General of the Secretariat for the Co-ordination of the Peace Process (SCOPP) from 2004-2005 and as Senior Adviser to the President of Sri Lanka from 2004-2007 exposed me to an experience relevant to your mandate.
2. The details of my curriculum vitae and my writings and statements are available on my website www.jayanthadhanapala.com
3. At the outset may I state that I welcome the appointment of your Commission despite its belatedness. It is an opportunity to learn from the tragedy of the recent past and to establish a basis for national reconciliation and unity. The leadership of H.E. President Rajapakse and the bravery of our armed forces resulted in an outstanding military victory over a ruthless terrorist group which ravaged our nation for decades. The time has now come for a multi-dimensional political solution to consolidate that military victory addressing the roots of the conflict. I must warn, however, against a strategy of postponing Constitutional change and a political solution to the problems that culminated in three decades of conflict until the Commission concludes its work and makes its recommendations. That would only exacerbate existing grievances and widen the gulf between the Government and the public at large especially those belonging to the minority communities. It will also affect the credibility of your Commission adversely. A series of  APRC meetings have taken place and a draft report awaits action by the President and its presentation to the general public for discussion and a decision after a wide consultative process.
4. Your mandate artificially sets a time frame from 21 February 2002 to 19 May 2009. That and its restricted mandate is also a limitation in your good faith efforts to discharge your task. The lessons we have to learn go back to the past – certainly from the time that we had responsibility for our own governance on 4 February 1948. Each and every Government which held office from 1948 till the present bear culpability for the failure to achieve good governance, national unity and a framework of peace, stability and economic development in which all ethnic, religious and other groups could live in security and equality. The political expediency of apportioning blame will not serve the purpose of national reconciliation. A collective apology to the people of Sri Lanka is owed by all political parties.
5. The supreme law of the land is its Constitution and we have still not been able to frame a Constitution that elicits the confidence and trust of all our citizens. It is not possible within this brief note to outline the form of devolution that I think is vital to prevent future conflict in our land. Suffice to say that constitutional reform is vital and I trust that the excellent talent we have among our constitutional lawyers will be harnessed in this vital task.
6. Education is a primary tool in creating a tolerant society. The experts we have in this field will advise more competently than I can about the techniques of teaching the three languages in use in our country from the earliest age. This must be more than a token gesture and the need for competencies in all three languages up to the GCE ‘O’ level will be necessary to weld our nation into the harmonious multilingual society we need to be. The cost of recruiting teachers and producing the books for this is a small investment for a huge gain. The example of other countries can be studied most especially in Canada. As far as possible classes in comparative religion could be introduced at senior levels in secondary schools so that a basic understanding of the 4 religions practised in our country is imparted as a pre-requisite for tolerance and religious harmony.
7. Addressing my own experience more directly I recommend that the career diplomats in the Sri Lanka Foreign Service be trained in the representation of a multi-cultural country. All diplomatic and consular missions of Sri Lanka abroad should have officials conversant in Sinhala and Tamil to communicate with the growing expatriate Sri Lankan communities. The symbols and photographs displayed in these missions should focus on the rich diversity of our culture with representatives of all religions participating in the official ceremonies conducted by them. A special outreach effort to engage all groups within the expatriate Sri Lankan community must be organized by the Ministry of External Affairs and implemented by our missions abroad.
8. Sri Lanka is a signatory of all the major international human rights conventions and reports periodically on its adherence to these norms. It would be useful if national reports are not only co-ordinated with relevant Government agencies but also with leading NGOs as well. NGO representatives could be included in the Sri Lanka delegations to Human Rights meetings. More prominence must be given in the media to these reports and the proceedings in the international forums considering them. This transparency about the country’s performance in relation to international norms is necessary both for our own citizens and for the information of the international community
9. The armed forces of Sri Lanka are already being trained in international humanitarian law and human rights. This must be intensified and the Police and the provincial administrators brought into this training process. All police stations and government offices must have facilities to deal with citizens who speak only in Sinhala or Tamil recording statements in the language of the citizen’s choice.
10. International Humanitarian Law is work in progress. Currently there are four treaties and three additional protocols which, over approximately one and a half centuries, have set the norms. The modern experience of counter-terrorism needs to be reflected in the codification of this law and Sri Lanka is uniquely equipped to take an initiative in this respect. Armed combat with terrorist groups using suicide bombers, child soldiers and human shields make the protection of civilians and war victims very difficult for the armed forces. While in no way reducing the humanitarian aspects of the existing law some discussion could take place in the international community on how the rules of engagement between the armed forces of the state and the terrorist groups could be amended on the basis of the experience gained in Sri Lanka and elsewhere. For example, the May 2009 heroic breaching of the earth bund, behind which an estimated 300.000 civilians lay trapped by the LTTE as human shields, led to the saving of many lives and the conclusion of the conflict but the alternative scenarios and its humanitarian law consequences for Sri Lanka must also be considered. With regard to anti-personnel landmines, while the Mine Ban Convention applies to nation states the Geneva Call is a neutral and impartial humanitarian organization dedicated to engaging armed non-State actors (NSAs) towards compliance with the norms of international humanitarian law (IHL) and human rights law (IHRL). The organization focuses on NSAs that operate outside effective State control. The LTTE rejected overtures by the international community to join this Call. The point I make is that existing norms have to be adapted to new situations that arise. Sri Lanka will need to consult through diplomatic channels and especially with the ICRC to convene a diplomatic conference to formulate a new Additional Protocol on new situations arising on the battlefield when encountering terrorist groups. This would be innovative diplomacy and far more constructive than the vitriolic outburst and melodramatic demonstrations we have engaged in against countries and organizations critical of our human rights record.
11. The post-conflict situation is an excellent opportunity to de-weaponise our society. In the years of terrorism both in the South and the North we developed a gun culture. The country was flooded with small arms and weapons. Nobody felt secure without a gun. But even after the LTTE were defeated we have seen no replacement of the culture of violence with a culture of peace. There is violence at the level of the village and there is violence in cities. Guns contribute to this. We have a national campaign against the consumption of liquor led by the President called “Mathata Thitha”. Should we not also have a programme which we can call “Aviyata Thitha”? I appeal to you  to place this at the top of your priorities.  The free availability of Small arms and light weapons feeds conflict and crime. They are cheap and can be carried even by children. About 60% of human rights violations in the world have involved the use of these weapons. In Sri Lanka we need stricter laws for gun control. The existing Firearms Ordinance goes back to 1916 during the British colonial era and although penalties for offences under it have been increased the entire law relating to gun control needs revision and modernization. We do not even have reliable estimates of how many guns we have licensed and unlicensed. Some NGO surveys say there are 1.9 million in circulation.  According to news reports guns owned by the LTTE are frequently being discovered. Are we sure they go into the custody of the Government? There are guns which deserters from our armed forces have carried away from the battlefield which may have gone into the underworld. There are trap guns illegally used by farmers which are misused for criminal activities. Guns should as far as possible be owned by the security forces only and private ownership must be licensed and for justifiable reasons. In a post conflict period while ensuring that we are vigilant to prevent terrorism we must also roll back the process of militarization that has taken place in our society.
12. When I was in charge of the Disarmament programme in the United Nations in addition to urging strong action against nuclear weapons I led a campaign against small arms which was directly affecting the peace and development of developing countries. There are an estimated 875 million small arms in the world 75% in the hands of civil society. They cause the deaths of about 500,000 persons every year. The UN held a conference in 2001 and adopted a Programme of Action to prevent the illicit trade in small arms. That programme is being implemented and every two years international conferences are held to review its implementation. A Preparatory Committee met in July this year to draw up an Arms Trade Treaty which will regulate the trade in conventional weapons in the world. We can use the many experiences in other countries to mop up surplus guns in Sri Lanka. Some of them have had bonfires of surplus guns. I would like to see the destruction of surplus guns in our country. That will symbolize more effectively the end of a gun culture and the defeat of terrorism. There are international resources available for curbing the proliferation of guns which we can use.
13. Racial and religious prejudices exist close to the surface in our society and can erupt in moments of tension. We need a law banning hate speech and hate incitement so that whether by the majority or the minorities all forms of hatred based on ethnicity, religion and caste are declared illegal. A Race and Religious Relations Act patterned on what other multicultural democracies have could be introduced under the Ministry of Nation Building.

A return to basic ethical principles and values is urgently needed  in our  country today when advocates of exclusivism, prejudice, hate and violence stand in the way of rebuilding a peaceful and prosperous nation.

Let us remember the words of Buddha, as recorded in the Dhammapada:

“The others know not that in this quarrel we perish. Those of them who realize it, have their quarrels calmed thereby.”

It is time we calmed the quarrels among ourselves.

Similar Posts:

• Internal Armed Conflicts, Humanitarian Laws and the Curious Transformation of Dr. Jayantha Dhanapala
• Louise Arbour and Mahinda Rajapakse
• The promise of Citizen Journalism: Article on Madrid11
• A response to Michael Robert’s Dilemma at Wars End: Thoughts on Hard Realities
• The Government must uphold the Rule of Law

Photo courtesy Global Zero

Numerous reports suggest that Dr. Jayantha Dhanapala had some interesting things to say when he appeared before the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) recently; about aspects relating to the interference of certain States in the internal affairs of other States; about the R2P concept; about the Sri Lankan Armed Forces carrying out a daunting humanitarian operation, saving 300,000 innocent civilians kept as a human shield by the LTTE and thereby preventing a certain ‘holocaust’ (The Daily News, 26 August 2010; The Ministry of Defence (defence.lk), 25 August 2010).

Thereafter, he had said the following too: that there was a need for an international protocol to deal with Armed Forces engaged in fighting terrorism with non-State actors and that ‘many of the Rules of War and International Humanitarian Laws were based on the assumption that the warring parties were conventional armies of states but in Sri Lanka’s case the LTTE had totally disregarded those laws and principles.’

Finally, he seems to have said something that even President Mahinda Rajapaksa or Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa would have been reluctant to claim so openly: that International Humanitarian Laws (IHL) should not apply to Sri Lanka’s war against the LTTE and that a conventional army cannot be bound by international laws in fighting a terrorist organization (The Island, 26 August 2010).

The initial questions that arise here are these: where was Dr. Dhanapala all this time? Is this the same Dr. Dhanapala who, talking about the CFA some years ago, saw light at the end of the tunnel? Is he the one who was accused of trying to appease the LTTE through the P-TOMS? Why did Dr. Dhanapala decide to remain somewhat silent during the last stages of the war? Was there any reason to wait until the war was over for him to argue that IHL did not apply to the conflict in Sri Lanka? Is he coming out so boldly against the LTTE because the LTTE was defeated and destroyed in May 2009? What then of ‘integrity’ of these learned and respected gentlemen who say (or do not say) one thing during times of war, and a completely different thing after the war?

More importantly, what happened to Dr. Dhanapala who delivered the keynote address at a seminar organized by the ICES and the UNDP in November 2007, titled “Sri Lanka as a Member of the UN”? That was a very interesting and informative speech, in which Dr. Dhanapala seemed to have reminded the audience of Article 2(7) of the UN Charter and then stated that “we must also recognize that we have willingly conceded sovereignty by joining several treaties and in these treaties we have got certain obligations that we fulfill.” And then, Dr. Dhanapala said something else too. He said that: “The fact that there is a conflict requires us to maintain the Geneva Conventions and the ICRC is there to help us.”

If so, would Dr. Dhanapala tell us why we were required to maintain the Geneva Conventions in 2007, and why he is arguing now (in 2010, one year after the war) that IHL should not have been applicable?

IHL and the deprived soldier: reforming existing laws

Firstly, the Conventions and Protocols which form the general body of IHL are old. The basic documents, in this regard, are the four 1949 Geneva Conventions (the Geneva Conventions that Dr. Dhanapala referred to in his 2007 keynote address) and the two 1977 Additional Protocols. The nature of armed conflict, especially internal armed conflict, has changed over the years. The conventional soldier is today facing unconventional and sophisticated non-state actors and very dangerous terrorist groups.

It can also be seen that some of the provisions contained in the above mentioned Conventions and Protocols do not adequately cover problems that the conventional soldier might face today. Due to the arduous task that the soldier is faced with, he might even consider these conventions to be of little meaning.

Take Common Article 3 (i.e. common to all of the Geneva Conventions), which states that persons taking no active part in hostilities shall be treated humanely. But practically, the conventional soldier faces a problem here because he cannot easily distinguish between a person who takes part in hostilities and one who does not, if, for example, the person concerned is a potential suicide bomber dressed up as a civilian. Consider for instance the video footage of a female suicide bomber blowing herself up inside Minister Douglas Devananda’s office. Certainly, until the blast took place, no one was able to identify clearly that that woman was there on a suicide mission. Consider then the enormous difficulty that the soldier or policeman would face, especially in conflict areas. Article 3 informs the soldier that if a person is not taking part in hostilities he/she should be treated humanely; but then, how do you know that the man or woman or child approaching him is not a person taking part in hostilities, in the first place?

Take the issue of indiscriminate attacks for instance (‘indiscriminate’ is defined in Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I concerning protection of victims of international armed conflict). The soldier has to ensure that he does not resort to indiscriminate attacks, and he always needs to distinguish between military and non-military objectives. But practically, if the soldier is facing a group such as the LTTE, there are enormous difficulties here since terrorist groups use homes, hospitals and schools to train terrorists and perpetrate further acts of terrorism. Consider the difficulty that the soldier who has firm intelligence reports to conclude that that home or hospital or school under scrutiny is a military target and one which is used by terrorists.

These examples would suggest that States need to think seriously of reforming certain laws, in a way current difficulties faced by the soldier are taken into account. Importantly, States should also be mindful of the importance of concluding a comprehensive legal framework which covers all aspects of counter-terrorism, especially in an era as this when States face many problems due to terrorism. And in this regard, one part of the argument raised by Dr. Dhanapala contains much truth.

Internal armed conflicts and the application of IHL

However, whatever these problems may be, there should not be any doubt concerning the application of IHL, the Geneva Conventions in particular, in internal armed conflict situations. As the Appeals Chamber of the ICTY held in the Tadic case (1995), IHL should apply to all conflicts, international and internal; some important reasons for such an application being the cruel and protracted nature of such conflicts, the frequency of such conflicts and the importance of human rights protection during conflict situations.

To argue, like Dr. Dhanapala has argued, that the current body of international laws should not apply just because it is inadequate to cover present realities of armed conflict is a very dangerous argument; an argument that no democratic state could ever make. As Antonio Cassese once pointed out, certain rules of conduct of hostilities in international armed conflict have been extended, on a gradual basis, to internal conflicts as well. It is necessary to understand the logic behind this extension; as the ICTY in the Tadic (Interlocutory Appeal) stated, “What is inhumane, and consequently proscribed, in international wars, cannot but be inhumane and inadmissible in civil strife.” It follows then that the humanitarian laws that would be applicable in international armed conflicts should also apply in cases of internal armed conflicts.

It is here that one should also understand that while the present body of IHL has its weaknesses, it still plays a most important humanitarian purpose. The Geneva Conventions, in this regard, play a vital role in ensuring that there is at least some minimum protection of civilians who are trapped in conflict situations. Article 3 (quoted above) of the Geneva Conventions, it has been noted, constitute the ‘minimum yardstick’ applicable to armed conflicts of any nature; as was held by the ICJ (Nicaragua (merits), 1986).

And in this regard, it is vitally important that one approaches this issue not only from the perspective of the soldier, but also from the perspective of the innocent civilian. How preposterous would it be if a State is to argue that such international humanitarian norms do not apply in internal conflicts? What minimum relief would the innocent civilians have? Would the civilian see any difference between the terrorists who deny their basic freedoms and the State which argues that even that ‘minimum yardstick’ is not applicable? This is one of the fundamental reasons why Dr. Dhanapala’s argument is extremely dangerous. It is an argument that is made in order to evade responsibility for the mistakes that soldiers could make. This is also an argument which can be made to perpetrate indiscriminate killings; a course of action that terror groups resort to, not armed forces of a democratic state. This is also the kind of argument that the disgruntled and obnoxious officials of the US State Department can and do make, and certainly not one a distinguished former diplomat of Sri Lanka and the UN could ever make, in all seriousness.

‘Sri Lanka as a Member of the UN’

Ironically, one needs to revisit the title of the 2007 keynote address of Dr. Dhanapala and consider what Sri Lanka’s role as a Member of the UN would be if Sri Lanka is to make the argument that IHL did not apply to the conflict that concluded in May 2009 and that its armed forces were not bound by any international laws; the argument that Dr. Dhanapala has made recently.

President Rajapaksa, it should not be forgotten, has held a different view on this matter, for he has stated in his speeches that the task of his brave soldiers was difficult because they were carrying the gun as well as the Declaration of Human Rights when going into the battlefield. While this may be political rhetoric, undoubtedly, one needs to appreciate the deeper message here; i.e. that the soldiers were mindful of the international norms and standards that had to be followed, of the importance of treating civilians humanely, of the importance of protecting human rights, of the importance of all the international humanitarian obligations that soldiers of a State had to fulfill. That is the correct approach; and to retract now and argue that IHL did not apply to the Sri Lankan conflict would be a disgrace to a country and the brave armed forces which defeated the LTTE.

Sri Lanka, as a Member of the UN, should always maintain that all important moral high ground, however difficult that task would be. Sri Lanka, as a Member of the UN, should still be mindful of former UNSG Kofi Annan’s Report ‘Uniting Against Terrorism’ (A/60/825) in which it is stated that in the fight against terrorism we “must never sacrifice our values and lower our standards to those of the terrorists. International cooperation to fight terrorism must be conducted in full conformity with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations and relevant international conventions and protocols. It is an obligation of States to ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with their obligations under international law, in particular human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law.” (para 112, emphasis added).  States Members of the UN resolved to recognize the importance of this message when the General Assembly adopted a resolution titled ‘The UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy’ (A/Res/60/288), on 20 September 2006.

It should also be remembered that even the numerous conventions on the suppression of terrorist acts highlight the importance of the rights, obligations and responsibilities of States and individuals under international law, in particular international humanitarian law (for example, Article 19(1) of the 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings).

One only hopes that the press has misquoted Dr. Dhanapala, and misquoted badly. If not, it is rather alarming to note how Dr. Dhanapala, a former Under-Secretary General of the UN, seems to have forgotten the importance of IHL, and argues that a state should not be bound by international laws when fighting a terrorist organization.

(Kalana Senaratne, LL.B, LL.M (University College London), is currently a postgraduate research student at the Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong)

Similar Posts:

• The Government must uphold the Rule of Law
• Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka on history of power-sharing in Sri Lanka and the 13th Amendment
• Violating the Madhu Sancuary – Some brief thoughts
• On Sri Lanka’s accession to the ICCPR Optional Protocol
• A brief response to a charge of mercenary intellectualism

Eyebrows were raised when I included the word deffa on the mirisgala website under “new entries”. And it’s true that it is stretching the point to claim that it qualifies as standard Sri Lankan English. But perhaps it also gives us an insight into the future of SLE.

Deffa (or defa) is a word that is increasingly common in internet chatrooms etc. It is an abbreviation of the English word definitely, which is used in colloquial Sinhala as an alternative to the slightly formal anivareng. From Sinhala (via Singlish?) it has re-entered colloquial Sri Lankan English with the same meaning. Here are a few examples from the internet:

He will defa help you out.
dudes…we can all defa chip in a bit and raise 300000 bucks…
there’s deffa a chance of retrieving stuff …
we’ll deffa be there!

Another word which has taken a similar route is shape, which has a far wider range of meanings in current colloquial SLE than it has in standard English. First of all the English word shape seems to have entered Sinhala as a verb (shape karanava), presumably derived from phrases such as in shape (= fit) and getting something into shape (= getting something organised, arranging something properly). Its meaning extended to include sorting things out, smoothing things over, winning somebody over, buttering somebody up, getting out of an awkard situation, etc. And it became a one-word expression “Shape!” meaning “Great!/perfect!/sorted!”

Finally, the word shape re-entered Sri Lankan English with the same range of uses. There was once a newspaper headline “Referee blamed for ‘shaping’ All Blacks rugby captain”. And Nihal de Silva used the term in his posthumous novel Arathi:

“It’s a business thing … a supplier has buggered me up.”
“Well, shape it, … You can always fix these things, can’t you?”
(Arathi, by Nihal de Silva, page 27)

###

A-Z of Sri Lankan English is an all-new, occasional alphabetical dip into the variety of English spoken in Sri Lanka, published exclusively on Groundviews. The original A-Z of Sri Lankan English was published in the travelsrilanka magazine, and can be found here.

Similar Posts:

• A Snooty English Speaker’s reply
• Sri Lankan English: The state of the debate
• A-Z of Sri Lankan English: C is for cousin brother
• B is for balls (and bowls)
• Putting cuts, part-putting and pol symbol

On our way to the first scheduled hearing of Northern Muslims who were expelled by the LTTE in 1990, we spotted a group of men working hard out in the open, under the midday sun, and we stopped to have a conversation with them. Eight days earlier they had made their way from Puttalam to Marichchakatty with the goal of initiating the ‘journey home’ after the expulsion almost two decades ago.  Happy to leave their landless status in Puttalam and their livelihood as daily wage laborers, they were looking forward to reclaiming their lost lives as farmers and fishermen in their native villages. Although the end of the war heralded a new era and sparked hope of ‘returning home’ the people are caught in a quagmire of challenges and obstacles. The absence of permanent structures and conditions conducive to living has compelled the women—their wives and daughters– to restrict themselves to temporary visits. The distressing lives of the displaced indicate that the frequently touted benefits of post war are sluggish in its pace in reaching them. Twenty years is a significant period in a human’s life, and for people who have sacrificed that many years under harrowing circumstances, patience is a virtue that is difficult to preach. In the absence of normality in the lives of the people, the war has only ended, not won. True victory in war lies in the blossoming of the people, and blossoming, by their definitions.

Currently, Muslim villages in Mannar are completely decimated, with almost no trace of the once robust and lively dwellings. Where once tall buildings stood and people mingled, trees have grown, and elephants and snakes have made their dwellings. As in the case of the men we met, the onus of restoring their lives is on those returning, even though restoring translates to transforming a jungle into a village. Assistance from the government is meager and slow in delivery. Institutions move at a slow pace and are handicapped in resources and efficiency. Therefore, severing links with Puttalam, the area  that embraced the Northern Muslims when they were ‘orphaned’ has to be postponed.  Sometimes, people have to earn in Puttalam to support agricultural work in Mannar, and until the ‘men’ of the families build suitable structures that are comfortable and secure for living, the women have to remain in Puttalam.  In this regard, the opening of the road connecting Puttalam and Mannar, has been a great support to the Northern Muslims.

However the opening of the road has become a controversial issue. Prior to the war, access to this road was restricted to private vehicles, and was commonly used by residents of Musali and Mannar as it significantly reduced travel time between Mannar- Musali and Puttalam.  The direct road shrinks the distance from Puttalam to Mannar from 210 km to 143km, from Puttalam to Musali from 185km to 100km and from Puttalam to Marichchukaddi from 235km to 77km.  Moreover  expelled Northern Muslims from other districts  also  benefit from this road, as it also connects to the Jaffna Road. Citing the need to preserve the Wilpattu National park, through which this road passes, wild life enthusiasts argue against the opening of the road. While conservation of wild life is an important consideration, the welfare of a marginalized group of people who have suffered immensely for over two decades needs immediate attention. As stated above, the road would greatly reduce the inconvenience the returning Northern Muslims would have to undergo when travelling to and from Mannar and adjacent areas.  In the context of the potential harm to the wild life of the national park, the commission appointed to probe into the expulsion of the Northern Muslims recommends a mechanism where access is granted by special permission to residents of adjacent areas for private vehicles only. Additionally, they suggest that access could be granted on a limited basis and that too at a cost, which would further restrict the use of the road. If entry to the road is barred, the people from Musali (an area immediately North of Wilpattu National Park) especially would have to travel North to Medawachiya and then travel back South to their area (Daily Mirror 25.06.2010).

The Northern Muslims were expelled with barely 48 hours notice in Mannar and just a couple of hours notice in Jaffna. They arrived in Puttalam with at most, a shopping bag full of possessions. Along with the psychological trauma of being expelled, they had to endure much hardship during their time in Puttalam. Two decades later, some of them are happy with what they have accomplished in spite of the suffering they underwent as displaced people; their hardwork and efforts have yielded material assets for themselves, as well as intangibles such as hope for a better future for their children through good education. However, for some, home is still in the North. Therefore, whatever may be their material possessions in Puttalam, they are still longing to return and resettle in their original places. The lack of assistance, both financial and non-material, is a significant barrier. Having invested their money in assets in Puttalam, they do not have cash to spend on starting life a new in the North. Building a second or third house during their life-time, is not an option for them, although housing remains an essential requirement. Therefore aid from the government or other organizations is a great need at present.

For some others, home is still the North, yet, the attachment, at this point, is only emotional. The assets they have acquired, and the lifestyle they have adapted in Puttalam, are too much to abandon. The thought of starting life from ground zero in a place where war has razed all signs of human habitation is enough to eliminate the option of returning. Poor quality of schools and availability of teachers, the severe scarcity of water and the dearth of economic opportunities add to their decision to stay back. Furthermore, some evicted Muslims are wary of their Tamil neighbours whose supposed representatives evicted them, in an act of ‘ethnic cleansing’ and assert that they do not want to make themselves vulnerable, and ‘at risk’ of being hurt again. Social dynamics that play an important role in a society have been severely disturbed and shattered. Trusted neighbours and friends who formed the community are no more. Even if people resettle in the presence of suitable infrastructure, the absence of a community that they could trust, make people wonder if resettling is a wise decision.

The twenty years that have lapsed since the expulsion has changed the landscapes in many different ways. For the displaced and the officials concerned, solving land issues is a major challenge. At the height of the war when there were no signs of peace, and life in the camps was cruel, some of the Northern Muslims sold their land, for much needed cash with the hope of a better life. Since the war is history now, those who sold their land are landless, and realize that the prices at which they sold their land are way below the actual value. However, they are unable to reverse the transactions and reclaim their land or obtain a better price for their assets already sold. They feel, therefore, that they sold their land under duress, and are entitled to compensation. In the last two decades, the population has expanded and as a result, a shortage of land in the North is inevitable, and this creates a road block for ‘return’. A filtering process of some form is necessary to determine who returns and who stays back. The people also request that the government distribute land to enable them to make an easier transition to the North.

Some who own land in the North find it difficult to claim it because of the lack of deeds and because physical boundaries and landmarks have erased or blurred over time. Due to the adversities faced during the expulsion, the journey from the North and life in displacement, some have no documents to prove ownership. Some that had permits and the promise of deeds at the time of the expulsion are unsure of their status. In some cases, authorities abuse their power and manipulate ownership and boundaries of land according to  personal interests thereby giving rise to conflicts among the communities. Many Northern Muslims felt that other than in exceptional instances, many local level representatives of government authorities were unsympathetic to their aspiration to return.

Although the practice of giving dowry was not common to Muslims of all Northern districts, as a consequence of the expulsion and the blending of various groups, it has become a popular practice. This increases the need to solve problems related to boundaries and ownership of land, as marriages are dependant on dowry. Some are adamant to resolve the resettlement process, not for their own return, but to have clear ownership of land, so that they can offer the land as dowry and arrange a marriage for their  daughters.

Due to security reasons, the state has claimed land in various parts of the North and demarcated ‘high security zones’. Some of this land is private land, and some of it is state property with important public institutions within its boundaries. For example, in Silavatura, the hospital, school and Pradeshiya Sabha building are trapped in the high security zone barring access to civilians.

The state policy for return and resettlement is not clear, it varies from district to district, and provides no structured framework within which all institutions and people can act. Government officials of some districts have been instructed to give land to those displaced in the recent years, neglecting groups such as the Northern Muslims who were displaced much before that. The expelled people sometimes compare themselves to those affected by the Tsunami.  They feel that their suffering was of a similar magnitude, yet, the compensation and assistance was much less. In the last twenty years only two housing projects have been put in place by the state for the displaced; the mid 1990s initiatives under Minister M.H.M Ashraff and the current World Bank housing project. Communication lines between the state and displaced civilians are also very weak. In some instances, the people are unaware of the status of their original land in the North (whether or not it is demined and if it is ready for habitation). The lack of assistance from the government for resettlement is one of the biggest complaints the people have. Rations, which is the only form of stable assistance they have had from the government, since expulsion, has also come to indicate the ‘status’ of the people. There are currently many problems associated with return and the access to rations. Those who are interested in returning have been informed that the first step is to discontinue rations in Puttalam.  After they cut off access to rations in Puttalam, accessing rations in the North has become a huge problem. Some who followed these instructions complain that it has been a year since, and they are yet to receive any form of alternative assistance  in their hometown in the North.

Living with disappointment, hurt, betrayal, sadness and despair, the end of the war ignited a spark in the hearts of the displaced Northern Muslims and offered them a light of hope. Yet, the flame is faint and quivering. The people who fill themselves with the grandiose plans and miraculous transformation of lives that   politicians spew generously on podiums become frustrated when the corresponding institutions stay mute. In the presence of inaction on the part of authorities, the people  take it upon themselves as the men I spoke of in the first paragraph did, and utilize the remnants of energy, hope, and resources that are left after twenty years of suffering.

Words of hope are not sufficient for people who have grown old, and have lost their childhood/youth in war and displacement. Action is needed, and it is needed now. Pointing the arrow of the compass towards the North, and claiming that it is ready for resettlement is not sufficient. The three phases of the expelled Northern Muslims’ lives need to be reconciled; the first phase of life in the North, where they belonged, followed by the life they were forced to adapt, and the new that is yet to come, either in their original place of birth, or elsewhere where they can set down roots for their futures and the generations yet to be born need to have smoother and more comfortable transitions.  Caught between the old and the new, with no comfort from either, their present is insensitive. The war is over, but where do they go from here?

Anushka Fernando is a researcher for the Citizens’ Commission on the Expulsion of Muslims from the Northern Province by the LTTE in October 1990.

Similar Posts:

• Citizen’s Commission: Expulsion of the Northern Muslims by the LTTE in October 1990
• Forgotten IDPs from the North
• The Muslim question and resettlement of Muslim IDPs in post-war Sri Lanka: Two comprehensive interviews
• The divide between Muslims and Tamils: Perspective of an IDP
• Feature story: Cries for help from Puttalam

Interview III – Tissa Jayathilaka from Young Asia Television on Vimeo.

In this interview, Tissa Jayatilaka speaks about the Ceylon of his childhood and the experience of being part of the last batch of students enrolled at the University of Ceylon. Tissa also talks about the tumultuous period during the 1970s, the roots of the conflict and flags the opportunities as well as challenges facing post-war Sri Lanka.

Finally, Tissa speaks of academia, literature and his experience as one of the first members of the Council for Liberal Democracy, a think-tank that was founded in 1981, and of his friendship with Dr. Chanaka Amaratunga, who was the founder of the Council for Liberal Democracy and the Liberal Party of Sri Lanka. Tissa also flags the concerns with liberalism in Sri Lanka and the liberal democratic movement.

Tissa contributed to the special edition on Chanaka Amaratunga compiled and published on-line by Groundviews. His article can be read here.

Similar Posts:

• The legacy of Chanaka Amaratunga and the future of liberalism in Sri Lanka
• Remembering Chanaka
• IN MEMORIAM DR. CHANAKA AMARATUNGA
• THE TRAGIC TRAJECTORY OF CHANAKA’S LIBERAL PROJECT
• In conversation with Dr. Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu