• Feature story: Cries for help from Puttalam
• The divide between Muslims and Tamils: Perspective of an IDP
• Forgotten IDPs from the North
• The voice of an IDP single mother in Puttlam

Twenty years after the Muslims were evicted from the Jaffna peninsula by the LTTE, the scars of war still remain, resettlement continues to be vexed issue and concerns unique to the Muslim community even more marginal to mainstream politics than the fulfilment of legitimate Tamil aspirations.

The following interviews, conducted in late 2009 and March 2010, look at these issues in detail.

Dr. Farzana Haniffa, Senior Lecturer, University of Colombo describes at length the Citizen’s Commission to investigate they expulsion of Muslims from the Northern Province by the LTTE in October 1990. Vital background reading in this regard is Dr. Devanesan Nesiah’s recent submission to Groundviews on the workings and raison d’être of this commission. As Dr. Nesiah notes,

The task of reversing ethnic cleansing is difficult but necessary. As I see it, the main task of this Commission is to push for and facilitate the resettlement of displaced Muslims back in the locations from which they were evicted. The displaced population needs to be motivated and helped to return. The conditions, facilities and inducements must therefore be attractive and the obstacles to return must be minimized. Particular attention needs to be paid to promote acceptance of the return on the part of the local communities among whom the returnees will resettle.

Dr. Haniffa explores this issue in greater detail, including generational tensions of return amongst the IDP camp populations, gendered concerns and those pertaining to livelihoods as well as inter-ethnic tensions framing return and resettlement.

This interview with A.M. Faiz, Director of International Affairs of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress was recorded in late 2009. Whereas Dr. Haniffa looks at the issue of resettlement, this interview concentrates on the political identity of the Muslim community and how their aspirations can be met in post-war Sri Lanka.

The interview goes into the key challenges faced by the Muslim community in particular during the three decades of war. Importantly, the interview looks at the future for political parties anchored to a specific ethnic identity, in light of news at the time that the Sri Lanka Government would ban political parties with ethnic or religious labels in their names.

Faiz also touches on the issue of IDPs languishing in camps in the East and laments the significant lack of political leadership in Sri Lanka to facilitate the return of these displaced Muslims. Speaking on the multi-million rupee plans for Northern and Eastern development, Faiz notes that nothing much is in the public domain and that there has been little or no consultation with communities on the ground in the formulation of these plans.

• Citizen’s Commission: Expulsion of the Northern Muslims by the LTTE in October 1990
• BATTICALOA CONSORTIUM OF HUMANITARIAN AGENCIES FACILITATING TO THE BATTICOLA IDPS
• TMVP in same dustbin as LTTE in the past?
• From Akkaraipattu
• The wages of passivity

“The Law& Society Trust (LST) together with the Community Trust Fund (CTF), the People’s Secretariat (PS) and the Rural Development Foundation (RDF) has setup a Citizen’s Commission to investigate they expulsion of Muslims from the Northern Province by the LTTE in October 1990”. This initiative is a result of the untiring efforts of the Northern Muslim leadership and a few civil society activists coordinated by Dr. Farzana Haniffa. The Terms of Reference of the Commission, of which I am a Member, goes on to set out the objective as “to produce authoritative documentation of expulsion and its consequence”, including in its coverage “the history of the expulsion, the experience of two decades of displacement and expectations, and in some cases the experience of resettlement”.

The largest numbers of those victims were from Mannar district of which I had, much earlier, been Government Agent for 3 years (mid 1965-mid 1968) I have happy memories of close interaction with many families there, both Tamil and Muslim. Inter-ethnic relations in Mannar were a model to the rest of the island. I have visited the district many times in 70s and 80s, and each time I found that inter-ethnic relations continued to be good. There was nothing on the ground to explain why the Northern Muslims were selected by the LTTE for eviction. The distraught evicted persons who I visited in Colombo soon afterwards kept asking it of me and I had no answer. Clearly the reasons were rooted elsewhere. Did the LTTE pick on the Northern Muslims because they were the most vulnerable with no record of ever resisting Tamil leadership?

Immediately after my service in Mannar I served 3 years as GA Batticaloa (mid 1968 – early 1971) and, much later, 3 years as GA Jaffna, then including Kilinochchi (mid 1981- mid 1984). Batticaloa and Jaffna districts also had large Muslim population and there too inter-ethnic relations were very satisfactory. The diversity was salient, e. g. Kattankudy, the largest Muslims town in the island, has very distinctive cultural and economic features sustained over many decades. It was much later that Tamil Muslim conflict in the East was promoted by outsiders who used Muslim home guards, as well as by the LTTE who sought to secure the subjugation of the Muslim population through a series of massacres. Despite these disruptions, most of the Tamil and Muslim populations of the North and East have, by and large, continued to live together in peace. Whenever I go back I feel as comfortable and as welcome in Muslim towns and villages in the North and East as when I was the Government Agent there decades earlier.

All this does not mean that there is no difficulty in reversing ethnic cleansing after a lapse of 20 years. That reversal should have been effected long ago. After a community departs from a locality, their properties progressively degenerate. Further, over the years, others move in to fill the vacant spaces created in the educational, social, economic and political life of that locality. At the other end, the displaced populations get settled in to their new locations with new neighbours, new schools, new economic and social activities, etc. New relationships get established superseding, in due course the old. The younger generation may have no ties at all binding them to the earlier location. With every passing year, reversal of ethnic cleansing becomes more difficult. Without focussed intervention, very few may go back. The appointment of this Commission is very welcome, though long over due.

The task of reversing ethnic cleansing is difficult but necessary. As I see it, the main task of this Commission is to push for and facilitate the resettlement of displaced Muslims back in the locations from which they were evicted. The displaced population needs to be motivated and helped to return. The conditions, facilities and inducements must therefore be attractive and the obstacles to return must be minimized. Particular attention needs to be paid to promote acceptance of the return on the part of the local communities among whom the returnees will resettle.

It will help to place each particular displacement and the return of the displaced in as broad a context as possible. Every act of ethnic cleansing is unique, and so too the related circumstances. If the issue is seen as a zero sum game between the two communities immediately involved, mobilizing comprehensive support for reversal of ethnic cleansing may pose some difficulties. On the other hand if ethnic cleansing is viewed in a broad context as affecting those of all communities, Sinhalese, Tamils and Muslims, and that policies to counter and reverse ethnic cleansing will bring joint gains to all victims, it would be easier to secure comprehensive backing for such policies. A balance needs to be struck between highlighting the special features of each case and the common features of all ethnic cleansing. The principles on which the remedies to all acts of ethnic cleansing are based should be independent of the ethnicity of the perpetrators and of the victims.

To permit any act of ethnic cleansing to stand would amount to withholding justice from the victims, to rewarding the perpetrators, to encouraging such acts in the future and, above all, to perpetuating a national crime and humiliation. On the other hand, no family or individual can be compelled to return to an inhospitable environment. The focus therefore should be on promoting voluntary return. This requires designing and executing the programmes in close interaction with and the participation of both the displaced communities and local community into which they are to return.  The remedies must be seen by all concerned as a step towards the restoration of the honour, not only of the victims and the perpetrators, but also of those who stood by and let the eviction occur. This Commission could play a lead role in spreading this message in relation to all acts of ethnic cleansing throughout our island.

• The Muslim question and resettlement of Muslim IDPs in post-war Sri Lanka: Two comprehensive interviews
• TMVP in same dustbin as LTTE in the past?
• The voice of an IDP single mother in Puttlam
• The wages of passivity
• Thought for the day

Apparently the end of the war has not changed it to be any better. As for what’s now happening, the reading was on the wall. Quite plain and clear while the two opposing candidates fought their battle for presidency with rhetoric sans politics. Accusing each other, of plotting to kill each other.

The presidential elections thus cleared and prepared the ground for such blatant violations of the law and DEMOCRACY, irrespective of who won the elections. The war hyped on Sinhala patriotism enabled the State machinery to be as ruthless as it is now, when Gen Fonseka is removed from where he was. Make it so elusive, that none would know how journalist Ekneligoda went missing. “Lanka” news paper editor is detained under emergency law that was unconditionally supported by the JVP also. War that gave it all teeth and might to violate the law and still make the big bite, legal and justified.

Irony of fate it is now, that Gen Fonseka has to go through similar violations of rights and be treated this way. Yet, it should not be. Gen Fonseka, has a right to be treated fair  according to law and within democratic norms of justice. Allowing this regime to continue to act with impunity is not punishing Gen Fonseka for his part in erecting this brutal regime, but giving into a regime that would continue to punish any or all who would stand for rights and democracy.

While there is urgency in demanding justice for Gen Fonseka, there is also the need to discuss how law and order and democratic life could be achieved in this country. It is this political necessity that the UNF is ignoring, trying to make electoral gains for the upcoming parliamentary elections through loud noise and larger numbers. The necessity now is not just to have a large alliance but to have a strong democratic programme for the next parliamentary elections. It is the political programme that should decide the alliance.

What should this programme include as current and urgent ?

Today it is urgently necessary to identify democracy, law and order and development, as key issues and as core problems in living a safe, decent and a satisfied life in Sri Lanka. Democracy and law order can not be achieved as “only for the South”. Unless Tamil democratic life is assured, there can be no democracy, no law and order for the Sinhala and Muslim people only. Its just common sense. Its only one centralised and repressive State that takes on all ethnicities.

The Sinhala society therefore has to be told that their right to law and order, democracy and development have been hijacked by substituting a “Sinhala patriotic” voice that has only kept them burdened with an ever  growing repressive State and socio economic problems all through the 62 years, after independence.

The Tamil society has to be provided with a leadership that need not necessarily be Tamil in ethnic terms. This was so, when the old LSSP stood for parity of status. It would be Tamil, to the extent that it represents their present, post war aspirations. Thus the issue of IDPs would have to be taken in real political terms, a political factor that is not being addressed by the Opposition in the absence of a credible Tamil leadership, strong enough to voice their concerns.

The issue of especially the Eastern Muslim population and their right to undisturbed livelihood in a democratic environment sans guns and grenades, is one tied to their cultivable land as well, that is in dispute all through the war and even at present. These could only be sorted out within democratic structures in a law abiding society.

The total programme thus would have to have a “people’s face” with the voices of Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim societies.

That programme should therefore in brief include,

01. Call for ethnic and social reconciliation for all war affected people to leave their burdens behind and become active members of a unified society

This is a necessary democratic process that has to be allowed to independently establish and grow outside State intervention, but with a political undertaking by the government and the opposition to honour its recommendations and conclusions.

This is a socio political necessity, as allowed in South Africa with “Truth Commissions” that healed its deep rooted social wounds from apartheid rule in the face of war crimes accusations, that any government in such crises would have to deal with.

02. Call for immediate demilitarisation of society to allow freedom to people’s undisturbed daily life and policing of law and order
The issue of maintaining law and order in a non-political environment in society is almost directly linked to the extent the society is left under undue security concerns and how politicised the organs of the State are. Today, with the war declared over, the necessity for people’s elected representatives to move about with armed security is wholly unnecessary and leads to their alienation and for arrogance in relating to social issues. Therefore the removal of armed security assigned to elected representatives has to be immediately called for starting with Provincial Council members. The disbanding of para military groups has to be called for immediately to ensure that the legal State security forces are held responsible for social security.

The police should be turned into an independent department under an independent Commission established according to the 17th Amendment to discharge its duties and responsibilities in the manner it is meant for – maintaining law and order in civil terms.

03. Call for a “Road map” for resettlement and rehabilitation of IDPs to be presented in parliament with budget allocations, to make the process responsible to parliament and accountable in terms of public money
The issue of the IDPs is not one of Tamil concern and Sinhala compassion. It is a political issue that has to be settled within democratic politics. The Tamil people have the universal right to freedom of movement and the right to settle where they were, prior to the war or to chose where they wish to settle. Therefore, the government is duty bound and morally responsible to tell the people what its programme is and the time frame for implementation. The government also has a responsibility to tell the public, Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim, how much money would be disbursed for the purpose as public money is being utilised for all such work. The call therefore should be to present a programme in parliament for resettlement and rehabilitation of IDPs with due allocations of money and responsibility.

04. Call for Democracy for lost development in the South
This would explain that the Unitary State, under all 3 Constitutions – Soulbury, Republican and the Presidential – have failed to deliver an economically viable society to the South. Districts in the South are the most poorest of all districts with 53% of the national wealth accruing in the Western Province with Colombo as its centre. People though electors of legislature, loose their representative power in deciding where their money go and how. A massive majority of migrant labour from the undeveloped rural areas, earn 35.9% of the foreign exchange for this country and still live among over 37% of poverty in the rural areas. It is thus a prime necessity to promote a participatory system of power sharing for the provinces to decide provincial development within a national policy framework. This would also raise the necessity of a new “constitution” with strong devolved power.

05. Call for a “national development plan” with emphasis on rural development, education, health and public transport
The issue of “National Development” has always been limited to budget proposals that never get discussed seriously even in parliament and never have follow up interim discussions, even in parliament. Most other “development” projects are totally outside the budget and are implemented by ministries on their perceived importance and availability of donor assistance. This has led to a situation where the labour market in a regional perspective is never surveyed and the rural economy plays no part in job creation, with education seeing no reason to have any relation to “development”. Thus the necessity to open up a social dialogue on national policy, taking into serious concern the provincial necessity of meeting local needs, for which the 13th Amendment needs to be honoured.

• “Believable Change” with unbelievable evasiveness: Sarath Fonseka’s manifesto
• Visualising Sarath Fonseka’s key campaign issues and manifesto
• A response to Mano Ganeshan: Beyond engaging the ‘Sarath Fonseka worshipers’
• “Believable Change” with unbelievable contradictions: Sarath Fonseka’s manifesto
• In defense of the JVP campaign to support Sarath Fonseka

I wrote on the 30^th of December in a post to Groundviews (and republished in the Daily Mirror) that the assertion that the Tamil people would be deciders in the Presidential election would be a myth. There was nothing brilliant or extraordinary about what I said at that time, but it was contrary to public perception that was prevalent all over the country and in international media circles. What I suggested was that for the Tamil people to be deciders two conditions have to be fulfilled. I wrote:

“For the Tamils to be the deciders in the election (like they could have been in the last) they have to vote as a whole, to one candidate and the Sinhala votes to both candidates should be almost equal.”

A lot of people thought it would be close in the South. I feared a good lead for Mahinda Rajapaksha in the rural south. I told my friends that a 600,000-800,000 lead in the South by Mahinda cannot be offset by SF by the margins that he receives in Minority areas. I never expected a 1.8 million lead for him in the South. Some of it might have been rigged. We just don’t know and we will never know. But one thing is clear the rural south did come out strongly for him.

My vote

I voted in the Nallur electorate in the Jaffna electoral district and I did vote for General Sarath Fonseka. My early impression was that both candidates did not deserve my vote but I soon altered my stance. For me taking a decision to spoil the vote meant not believing in the system. The system is indeed fundamentally flawed but then if we can’t change things democratically, the only alternative is for change to be attempted violently. Most in this country are tired of losing lives and I am definitely one of them. So the option of not believing in the system was not open to me. It was just inconsequential. I also thought that it is not right to approach this elections standing from an ivory tower of personal conscience and die hard political philosophy and principle. Politics, including the act of voting, is about taking tough decisions. I did not have the energy for another MR presidency. I was convinced that a vote for anyone else but SF would in effect indirectly contribute to a MR Presidency. The unknown devil at least I thought would provide an opportunity to try something differently. If the SF presidency even by a fraction or a chance might have increased the collective opportunity of life over death of the Tamil community I thought it was my duty to vote for him. And hence I voted for Sarath Fonseka, despite his flaws, despite the vaguness vis a vis his position on the problems of the minorities, despite his anti-minority pronouncements in the past, despite his role in the war. I voted for him because it was the only strong way of showing my protest to the incumbent and because I believed in the political forces supporting him. It was an uncomfortable decision to take but I had no other option.

The voter turnout in Jaffna

Many have expressed concern about the ‘poor turnout’ in Jaffna. Some die hard SF supporters were annoyed with the turnout. Some Pro-LTTE and Anti- LTTE Tamil Diaspora sites who opposed TNA’s decision to support SF have called the low voter turnout a boycott. Some know-it-all types in the Diaspora have said that the Jaffna people are not interested in a democracy. Nothing can be more insulting.

The following are some reasons for the ‘low voter turnout’, in my opinion:

1. 40% of registered voters are not in Jaffna. The 600,000 registered voters includes those migrated. Many Tamils in Colombo who moved from Jaffna have their vote in Jaffna – they are not registered in Colombo.
2. Killinochchi low voting (Killinochchi is part of the Jaffna electoral district. Only 7% voting was recorded mainly because of the poor state of facilities provided for the IDPs to vote),
3. Bomb scare in TNA strongholds on the day of the elections (example Nallur, Manipay),
4. Internal displacement within Jaffna (From the Islands to the mainland. From Chavahacheri (Thenmarachchi) to Jaffna and other places). People possibly were not willing to travel 10-12 kilometers to vote.
5. 80,000 people displaced by the High Security Zones (23,000 live in welfare centers and the rest with family and friends or have migrated).

The Chavahacheri, Udupiddy, Manipay, Vadukoddai, Thenmarachchi electorates in Jaffna recorded 30% voter turn out. This must be 60% of the actual residents. The Jaffna and Nallur electorates polled around 20%. The Jaffna peninsula average voter turnout should be in the high twenties and this must be at least 50% of the actual residents. If there had been no High Security Zones, internal displacement within Jaffna and proper voter registration this might have gone upto at least 60%. The 2010 turn out is the highest voter turn out ever in Jaffna in a Presidential election. The figures from the last election are:

2005 – 7.868 (1%) (Note: LTTE enforced a boycott)

1994 – 17,716 (2.97%) (Note: Jaffna was under LTTE control at this time)

1999 – 117,549 (19.18%) (Note: Killinochchi polled less than 4% – Was under LTTE control).

In 2010, 185,132 votes were polled with an average of 25%.

A comparison with the general election also shows us that this turn out is quite decent: In the 2004 General Elections Jaffna polled 300,000 votes (47%) the highest recorded in more than 20 years in election history. (I attended the only TNA rally in Jaffna on the 23^rd of January in Sangilyan Thoppu, Nallur where R. Sampanthan of the TNA said that last time the margin for MR was less than 200,000 and the vote that TNA had received in the 2004 General Elections was 620,000. I thought at that time that comparing the turn out at General Elections was not good analysis). In the 2001 election around 200,000 votes were polled (30%). In 2000 around 130,000 votes were polled averaging at just over 20%. It must be remembered that in both 2001 and 2004 General Elections the TNA had the backing of the LTTE.

The voter turnout in the rest of the North and East

Batticaloa has polled a remarkably consistent 64% as in the last three presidential elections. Vavuniya polled 43% this time and voted in the 40s in 2005 and 1999. Trincomalee polled 65% and had polled in the 60s in the past three elections as well. Voter turn out in Mannar was 35%. It has been consistently in the 30s. In 2005 the turn out was 30%. None of these districts were affected by LTTE’s enforced boycott in 2005. Mullaitivu has recorded less than 4% in the past having been under LTTE control and this time recorded a 14%.

What is the message from the voter turn out in the North?

The message is that there are very serious issues to be addressed prime among them being the resettlement of IDPs. This includes both the Vanni IDPs and the Old IDPs. Demilitarisation is also key to a higher voter turn out.

What is the message from the people of the North and East at this election?

The ‘liberated’ have clearly registered their protest against their ‘liberator’. The vote in Killinochchi and Mullaitivu amongst all difficulties and however small were clearly against the President. All over the North and East this has vibrated. The Jaffna vote clearly rejects Mahinda Rajapaksha’s Chechnyan style local leader Douglas Devananda. I don’t know how Dayan Jayatilleke is going to still call him the Jaffna people’s choice. EPDP won only Kayts in the 10 electorates in the Jaffna peninsula that even by a 600 vote margin. Even in Jaffna and Nallur which make up by and large the Jaffna Municpal Council (which he supposedly won) he lost receiving only 27% and 21% of the votes. It is loud and clear from Jaffna that he is not wanted; his style of politics is not desired. (But he might do well in the general elections under an MR presidency. Patronage politics will help him for another six years). The East has similarly spoken very clearly rejecting MR’s Chechnyan style local leader V. Muralidharan alias Karuna Amman. Pillayan should be silently happy with the vote. Two years of centrally controlled pseudo-provincial council rule has been rejected by the people. (Here again the TNA might struggle at the General elections under a MR Presidency).

The vote shows a clearly divided country: 65% of the minorities (Tamils, Muslims, Up Country Tamils) preferring one candidate and more than 60% of the majority community preferring another. I do not know what else we need to show that we are far from being a united country. But the President does not seem like he wants to reflect on this message. To journalists who met him soon after the elections he has repeated the same story: “the IDPs are happy in the camps”. We are likely to see more of the same.

The way forward

I am afraid that the result might be taken negatively by the minorities and the opposition parties, that even if they come together that they cannot make an impact. But the minority parties should take the positive message – the possibility that this election gave/has given of collectively envisaging an agenda. The opposition parties have to resolve and work together to break the common sense philosophy in Sri Lanka that being in the opposition is useless. If our democratic culture is to be rejuvenated we need opposition parties to believe that an opposition can do credible work. Concrete action based on a concrete agenda that mobilizes the people has to be worked out. The minority parties have to show their communities that it is possible to serve them sitting in the opposition. A strong coalition between the TNA-SLMC-DPF is immediately possible. That should be a starter for a broader coalition of progressive forces. This Government is sure to continue to wage a war on the opposition with new force. It has to be resisted and fought back democratically. For that we need opposition leaders who believe in themselves.

• Surveys with conflicting outcomes
• Analysis of how Jaffna voted and why the EPDP feels defeated in Sri Lanka’s first post-war elections
• Heeding the voices of the North
• Suggestion to the Select Committee on Electoral Reform
• Wasted vote!

- The Pied Piper by Robert Browning

Political commentators seem to have run out of superlatives when attempting to describe the leadership of President Mahinda Rajapakse.

Academics have joined the fray, falling over themselves to award him honorary degrees while Business Schools have attempted to analyse the crucial elements of his leadership style.

All are in agreement that his leadership is unprecedented in history and has no parallel elsewhere.

Even for keen observers of history it is difficult to identify a suitable mould from which, it may be assumed, the President may have been cast. It is only if we delve into the realm of fable that we find a parallel – that of the Pied Piper of Hamelin.

The essential elements of the story are the same – a plague of vermin, a desperate people, willing to try anything to rid themselves of the menace, a solution from a magician who later demands a price too high to pay and finally robs the townsmen of their future – their children – as the final price.

For many decades, Sri Lanka grappled with the plague of separatist violence. Through the years, there have been numerous vacillating attempts to resolve the conflict either by way of military solution or negotiated settlement. But until incumbent President Mahinda Rajapaksa decided to put all his eggs in one basket and go for a military victory there did not appear to be a political leadership genuinely resolute about a method to eradicate the LTTE once and for all. A desperate people worn out by years of conflict may have been willing to give this option a chance, not entirely unaware of the cost involved, to themselves and to the country.

And the Rajapaksa regime, master in the dark art of propaganda, crafted a story every bit as compelling as that of the brothers Grimm.

Building a case for a ‘just war’ was achieved by the simple measure of controlling information. As Nazi Propaganda Minister Dr. Goebbels once remarked: ‘He who runs the information, runs the show’.

First, access to the war zone was controlled. Very few journalists were allowed in, and the few that were, were limited to guided tours under the close supervision of the government. Any others who might spread information – aid workers, diplomats, politicians and the others were given similar treatment.

Aid workers had to make the ugly choice between serving the civilian population in the conflict zone under the strictures imposed by the government or abandoning them to their fate.  All those who took the risk and spoke out against alleged atrocities in the war zone, were promptly labeled Tamil Tiger Propagandists, had their visas revoked and faced deportation.

With these primary sources of information largely cut off, the regime then set about controlling what was published. A series of attacks on journalists took place, some were killed, others fled the country and many were silenced. Media houses were purchased outright by government affiliates. Television studios and presses were torched in extremely successful attempts to intimidate media outfits into submission.

To date, each of these attacks against scribes and media organizations remains unsolved. In some cases, government officials even spoke in favour of the attackers. One by one, independent journalists fell silent; dissenting voices were subdued and the media fell in line.

Thus a single consistent message emerged – the one which the state wished to convey.

The only discordant voices were the foreign media, diplomats and a few international agencies.

Playing to fears of neo-colonialism, a disingenuous interpretation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and sinister international conspiracies, these could easily be dismissed on the basis that they were either biased, misled, or the manipulated by the Tamil Diaspora. Even as respected a figure as Bishop Desmond Tutu was all but called a terrorist in Sri Lanka’s local media when he called on the UN to protect civilians trapped in the conflict.

Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth, and so it did.

People wanted to rid themselves of the menace and were willing to believe that the methods used were just and necessary. With little to the contrary appearing, and that which did, demonised, the magician was able to weave a spell of intoxicating sound that cocooned the population from reality.

The masses became blind to what was going on and as to the price that was being extracted, slowly but steadily. A nation that was founded and nurtured by the teachings of the Buddha was willing to look the other way at the tremendous human cost of war. The state-controlled media, once scorned by a politically astute citizenry because of its intense political prejudice, became the primary source of public information on all matters of governance and war. The Pied Piper had them all mesmerised, glued to their televisions sets, day in and out, watching the‘humanitarian operation’ to ‘liberate’ an oppressed people and unify the country unfold in gory detail.

If all had gone according to plan, by the time the people would awaken from the spell cast over them, it would have been far too late. Indeed it would have been quite ironic if they found themselves consumed by the very thing – terrorism, albeit this time at the hands of the state – that their supposed saviour had delivered them from.

But fortuitously, the people of Sri Lanka may not yet have met their doom by the hypnosis of the Pied Piper.

The split in the triumvirate that led the Sri Lankan troops to victory over terrorism is now exposing parts of the truth. The government in response has pushed its propaganda machine into overdrive, while those who lent an intellectual framework to the government’s policies – columnists from Dayan Jayatillaka to Malinda Seneviratne have conspicuously ignored the real issues raised, but have focused instead on finding new arguments to support the incumbent. This is probably born of necessity, for it is inconceivable that they were completely ignorant of what went on-and in the event of the truth emerging would find their credibility greatly damaged.

Given the enormous advantage enjoyed by the incumbent and the inexperience of the challenger, it is by no means certain that the Piper will find himself ousted but while the spell is not yet broken, its power is clearly diminished. With two weeks to go before Sri Lanka goes to the polls, the opposition presidential challenger, chief architect of the government’s military victory, has made phenomenal inroads into the incumbent base, an unimaginable prospect a mere seven months ago.

In the meantime, the hills are alive with the sound of music as the beleaguered Piper plays the cadenza of his life.

• Which comes first – Human Rights, Media or Terrorism?
• War and Press Freedom
• Media ‘Sakvithis’ in the dock in Sri Lanka?
• The origins of the Media Accreditation Card
• A malicious “patriotism” and its impact on media and journalists

Sarath Fonseka (SF) has said he will abolish the executive presidency, but is now flip-flopping on that too, and said the country may need it for a while longer, and may decide to hold some key powers if he wins, including keeping some key ministries for himself. After the war ended it was SF who said we need to keep the IDPs locked up in camps longer without release. During the war it was SF who said that this country belongs to the Sinhalese. Minorities should learn to deal with it, and not make undue demands.

Now he is positioning himself as the glorious saviour of the IDPs, castigating President Mahinda Rajapaksa (MR) for delaying their release. He is claiming to have the interests of the minorities in mind, and has struck deals with minority parties under conditions we don’t even know yet. He is being supported by an LTTE-proxy which was his sworn enemy during his time as first Jaffna commander and then Army commander. He has teamed up with this group, the TNA, which still has demonstrable links to LTTE sympathisers in the Diaspora.

Sri Lanka is probably the most ideal, living, breathing example of the saying – ‘politics makes strange bedfellows’.

SF has also teamed up with Sivageetha Prabhakaran (Batticaloa Mayoress), who I am familiar with personally, and is one of the most capable and moderate tamil politicians I know. But she has flitted from party to party and is clearly unpredictable. From the TMVP-Karuna faction, to the TMVP-Pillayan faction to the UPFA to now supporting the SF-led UNP-JVP camp.

The MR camp, though, is no different. In fact, they were the first who tried to woo the very same TNA to get their support. But now the govt is spinning the SF-TNA agreement as a ‘secret deal’ that will ‘betray the country’. People have crossed over to the government and are now bashing their former political home, e.g. Johnston Fernando and S.B. Dissanayake. Less because they truly believe in the cause, but more often than not because they received between Rs. 180- Rs. 500 million to make the switch. Some opposition MPs were heavily in debt, and got ‘’rescued’’, in turn for their support to MR. The government accuses SF of dodgy arms dealings, but won’t utter a word when asked about their own dodgy dealings on the MiG aircrafts, the Mihin airlines debacle, the pharmaceuticals disaster, the Deniyaya family mansion, the tens and thousand of lands forcefully or unethically obtained from private persons, the illegal contributions and the list goes on.

The MR camp is getting desperate and will resort to anything and everything. The level of corruption within the MR government is perverse. The wastage of public funds is repugnant, at a time when public funds are at its lowest ebb in decades. The lack of a debate on issues, but instead a game of mud-slinging, is disappointing but I guess we’re used to it.

A neglected discussion: has anyone thought of what happens AFTER the presidential elections?

If SF wins, together with his motley crew of backers – the UNP which hates the JVP which hates the UNP which loves the SLMC which hates the TNA which hates(hated?) SF, what’s next for Sri Lanka? We will have a situation like during the CBK Presidency – Ranil Wicks govt back in Dec 2001 onwards. What will happen at the next general election in April? Who will be the opposition? The UNP-JVP-TNA-SLFP(M)-SLMC-CWC breakaway etc etc.? But how could they POSSIBLY agree on a common platform for a parliamentary election. They’ll all vie for their different objectives, and pull in their own different directions. If such a platform does in fact succeed and such a government does come in to power, what then is the future for policy formulations? The whole business of ‘governing’ will be in disarray, it will be a ridiculously fragile coalition, where nothing would ever get done – because agreeing on something would be harder than when a woman decides what to wear for a party.

What if MR wins? We go back to the ridiculous nepotism, family-rule, corruption and graft of the last 4 years. Media freedom stifled. Political freedom stifled. Detractors and opposition actors jailed, killed, mysteriously vanquished. Millions more of public money ending up in the hands of a corrupt few. Poor economic management. Degrading international perception.

People I ask say, “I dunno man, making up my mind is tough this time. We’re caught between the devil and the deep blue sea”. Or ‘I dunno man, this time we’re caught between a rock and a hard place’.

The Sri Lankan people, once again, have ridiculously sparse options for their highest representative. Hobson himself could not have had a more measly choice.

• A message from a first-time voter
• My life and my choices in a country at war: A personal reflection
• A response to Kusal Perera on political honesty and questioning Sarath Fonseka
• An Unprecedented Presidential Election and the Future of Sri Lankan Democracy
• Corruption in Sri Lanka: Interview with J.C. Weliamuna

The presidential election manifesto of the opposition Common Candidate General (Rtd) Sarath Fonseka was released on 7 January, 2009 at a media launch in Colombo, titled “Believable Change”.  He says “I am different. I am change. I will bring about believable change” writing for himself, in the manifesto in which he tries to spell out his vision.

Why this manifesto of Gen (rtd) Fonska is singled out for this short dissection, with no comparison with the “Mahinda Chintanaya” of President Rajapaksa or with what he keeps blurting out at dinners and luncheons, at public rallies and public gatherings, is because of just one reason.

There was consensus among democratic forces that Rajapaksa needs to be opposed, long before elections were declared. Opposed for his anti democratic and anti rights, arrogant governance and for his very chauvinistic rule that left Sri Lanka ethnically divided, despite his claim for war victory. There was consensus among most opposition political parties and groups to defeat Rajapaksa, for his arrogant rule that seeped with heavy corruption, nepotism and absolute neglect of the economy that shows no future for Sri Lanka. There is therefore almost consensus on all issues to have President Rajapaksa replaced at this presidential elections. This leaves Gen (rtd) Fonseka as the alternative candidate from among 22 other candidates, campaigned for by the UNP – JVP led alliance, now supported by the larger group of TNA members in parliament.

All SL elections have always seen negative voter shifts as far as choosing alternatives. The voter tide has been “anti” and not positively “for” a programme at elections. This time too, the tide for Gen (rtd) Fonseka is more an “anti – Rajapaksa” vote and not one for a programme. A “change” is asked for, but that change is not politically defined in any tangible manner. Therefore, there is a need to understand what “change” Gen (rtd) Fonseka stands for as the alternative, in replacing Rajapaksa.

This therefore is an attempt to dissect that “alternative” to see how qualified or adequate an alternative Gen (rtd) Fonseka is. This, for that sole reason, leaves out Rajapaksa and his politics as not worthy of comment.

This country, right now and from a long time before, had the grand task of establishing itself as a pluralistic, secular nation State to develop itself as ‘one’ country. It thus has three fundamental issues to be addressed politically, in order to move forward. It is necessary to provide a political solution to the left out aspirations of the Tamil people, restructure the State to make it functionally democratic and pluralistic and also create a market economy away from neo liberalism, for national development.

This has become an urgent need, especially after this Rajapaksa regime, which leaves the SL polity divided and estranged ethnically, leaves the State politicised, corrupt and inefficient, with a constitution that is shamelessly and arrogantly violated and a parliament wholly alienated and disfigured, insulting the very verdict of the people at the last parliamentary elections.

It is this that we need to address and remedy and it is this that is assessed about Gen (rtd) Fonseka’s candidature. It is accepted that the three most important issues broadly spelt before, can not be wholly completed on a single programme and within a short period. Yet, what needs to be evaluated is the possibility and the opportunity this manifesto of Gen (rtd) Fonseka provides, in achieving what needs to be achieved for the future of this country.

On such an assumption , what is glaringly evident in Gen (rtd) Fonseka’s manifesto for a “Believable Change” is its ambiguity and evasiveness in not saying, rather than saying, what it would do.

The promise of abolishing the executive presidency, was “the” promise that brought this otherwise impossible grouping together. All other issues have been lately accommodated to make the candidature a populist one. Yet this most important promise of abolishing the executive presidency  is too vague to be “believable” as included in the manifesto. All what Gen (rtd) Fonseka’s manifesto promises is that he would “restore democracy and win the peace” for which he says, “Within a month cabinet papers will be presented for the approval of a ‘Constitution Amendment Bill’ to abolish the Executive Presidency”. That simply is everything about abolishing the executive presidency.

There is no mention of what power(s) would remain with the presidency thereafter, which he says he would hold and said it would not be like ‘William Gopallawa’. With such statements that was made by the Common Candidate himself, it is important for the people to know and also for a social dialogue to discuss, whether the new executive and legislative powers would be modelled like in France or like in India. Or, whether it would only have its “immunity” removed and or made answerable to parliament. There is no conceptualisation of the presidency that the people could understand, before they could vote in favour of abolishing the executive presidency.

This needs to be clear for one major reason. It was not only the Executive Presidency that was a bane to the people of this country. It was under the previous system of a parliament with the Prime Minister as Head of State, that we did everything we should not have done in polarising this society, ethnically. It was in such a parliament that the Tamil people of Indian origin were robbed of their citizenship and vote. It was in such a parliament that Sinhala was made the “Only official Language” and the bill which standardised university admissions on geographical and language basis were passed. It was within the 30 years with a parliament and a PM that Tamil politics moved from living in a “unitary” State to a “Separate Eelam” State from 1974.

It was also this system of parliamentary governance without an Executive Presidency, that led to armed insurgency, both in the Sinhala South in 1971 and Tamil North from around 1974, with the killing of Alfred Duraippah in July 1975.

Yet the “believable change” in executive presidency is not explained for the people by Gen (rtd) Fonseka, the Common Candidate promising change.

Worst is how the political conflict which left this country haemorrhaged with a human tragedy is treated. The manifesto in no page or paragraph even accepts there is in this country a political conflict that entrenches Tamil aspirations and that it needs a political solution. Since it does not see or accept such a conflict, there is not even a reference to the 13 Amendment to the Constitution, despite Gen (rtd) Fonseka’s earlier statement, “I will not be able to speak of a solution right away. There will be consultations among the political parties in the opposition fold. I’m for 13-plus because we need to move beyond the Indo-Lanka accord (1987)…..” answering a question from an Indian correspondent at his first media briefing.

With such intentional glaring omissions, his manifesto has left out what he has under his signature promised the TNA leader R. Sampanthan, in the document, “Programme of Immediate Relief Measures for war affected persons & Areas for Peace” handed over to the TNA on 04 January, 2009 at his own campaign office in Colombo. This signed document promises, “ High Security Zones to be dismantled in keeping with the re-location of the Security Forces” and also “All ‘para-military cadres’ and ‘armed groups’ to be disarmed forthwith”, Gen (rtd) Fonseka calling them “war lords”. This is further expanded very positively in the letter of promise given to the TNA by saying, “Except the Security Forces and Police, only persons with permits under the Firearms Ordinance, would be entitled to possess firearms.”

These are definitely positive steps towards de-militarising this society, tired and tortured  by numerous groups with arms, running around with State patronage. These are also very positive steps in creating space and providing opportunities for much needed reconciliation. Yet these very important and positive steps have been completely omitted from the ‘Believable Change’ manifesto.

This country today needs a socio political process to heal gaping wounds of a war that was fired off with “Sinhala patriotism” by the Rajapaksa regime, with the tacit support of the then Army Commander (Gen Fonseka) who went beyond his duty to play politics. The war was not only and simply a war that was fought against the LTTE. It was ideologically positioned to rally public support to this regime in the South, leading to an anti Tamil, pro – Sinhala supremacist psyche that changed perceptions within the State to a great extent, against the Tamil polity.

Today, the whole social psyche needs to be changed to accommodate justifiable compensation to the Tamil people who are left out of society with mental and physical agony, after what they had to live through. These wounds are being daily scratched and opened up in different fora, both locally and internationally, with accusations of war crimes. The main contenders to the presidency and their campaigns on one side are trying to bathe in the glory of war victory, while also trying to label the other as traitor on war crimes accusations. Such politics delays and denies much necessary reconciliation between estranged ethno religious communities and leaves reasons and justifications for international investigations on war crimes.

SL today needs a participatory socio political process on the lines of “Truth Commissions” in South Africa to handle its own excesses in war and bring about social reconciliation that compensates the aggrieved communities. A process that would be strong enough and democratic to tell the world, that SL can solve its own fall out of the war, without interference from outside.

Such is what an alternate candidate to Rajapaksa should offer for a “believable change” and most unfortunately, such is not what there is in this manifesto. The whole issue of ethnic reconciliation has been denied attention, though the title listed as number 05 in the manifesto has the word ‘reconciliation’ included.

Clearly, this manifesto for “Believable Change” is unbelievably silent on the Tamil problem and leaves out the Tamil people with only resettlement of the war displaced that any regime would have to undertake. With especially international pressure, as seen under this Rajapaksa regime.

The rest of what is included in the manifesto, especially for the Southern polity, is no different in their presentation. That would be discussed in the next instalment, as – “Believable Change” with unbelievable contradictions.

[Authors note: Part 2 of this article will follow on Groundviews in the next couple of days. To read General Sarath Fonseka's signed document referred in article, click here.]

• “Believable Change” with unbelievable contradictions: Sarath Fonseka’s manifesto
• Visualising Mahinda Chintanaya 2010: The President’s election manifesto
• A brief response to Dr G.L. Pieris
• Believable Change or Promises Delivered? Sarath Fonseka vs. Mahinda Rajapaksa
• Abolition or reform of Executive Presidency in Sri Lanka?

In a list of concerns that young voters feel need to be addressed, freedom of expression is front and center. This demographic, who were born into the age of the internet where ideas can be easily disseminated over a wide ranging audience, sees freedom of expression as a necessary tool to bring about unity and prosperity in the country. For Ameen Hashim (name changed) the reluctance that politicians seem to have in hearing any dissenting view is ridiculous and unfair. “They want people to think that what they are doing is perfect, when in reality, it is rather obvious that it is not,” he said, “Being the ones to vote them in, I feel that we as citizens, should at least be able to express ourselves without having to fear for our lives when we disagree with something that is being done.”

Another issue that many young voters feel should be a priority for the candidates is that of ensuring the rights of minorities. For Ruth Adams (name changed), who identifies herself as a minority in terms of both race and religion, both candidates’ track records indicate that their current interest in the rights of minorities is more politically motivated than sincere. Ruth stated that while nothing much was done for IDPs for over six months after the war ended, the sudden release of IDPs on a large scale suggested the incumbent was only doing it for political gain. She also expressed little optimism that the other front runner was any better if his declaration (before seeking office) that this country belonged to the ‘Sinhala Buddhist’ nation was to be considered, although he has gone on to clarify this.

The militarisation of the state is another pressing concern in the minds of young voters, many of whom have never experienced roads devoid of checkpoints or soldiers wielding guns. In Tharindu Perera’s (name changed) opinion, whichever candidate comes to power, a near complete militarisation of Sri Lanka is inevitable, and this, he says, is partly due to the mindset prevalent in the country right now. “Because the war has been won, most people are willing to accept anything involving the army without a second thought,” he said, “Whoever the next president may be, he is sure to exploit this.”

Other areas of consideration for these voters are issues such as education and healthcare, both of which are free and, for the most part, accessible to all. Concern was expressed about the fact that after the establishment of these systems many years ago, little has been done to improve them in terms of better facilities and more accommodation for the growing population. In the area of education particularly, many feel that if the language barrier that exists between Sinhalese and Tamils is appropriately dealt with in schools, reconciliation and unity would be easier to look forward to and more likely to last as the fact that both languages are not equally well known by everyone and the fact that no single language such as English dominates in the country could result in unnecessary tension and disharmony. Development of the country is another important aspect that many say needs to be addressed, along with issues such as corruption, bribery and wasteful spending.

As the election nears, insults, accusations and defamatory personal attacks against each other are sure to be carried out on an elevated scale by both the front runners. However, obviously, proposals regarding governing the country should take precedence over anything else. While consideration of a candidate’s past is obviously of the utmost importance in deciding what his future may indicate, if the choice is between the lesser of two evils (considering the front runners only), it would perhaps be helpful to also consider in depth the way forward that they are proposing. On pressing issues like democracy, human rights, rule of law and media freedom, there is little to pick between the promises of both front runners, which, if they are to be believed, will ensure a free and pluralistic society in this country, regardless of who comes into power. However, proposals and more importantly specifics regarding issues like the economy, education, poverty alleviation, healthcare and a host of other concerns must be given their due consideration and this election will hopefully be one that is contested on issues and policies rather than on emotions and nostalgia, and before casting their ballot next month, young voters in particular should seriously consider which candidate seems best able to represent their ideas and dreams for the future.

By Nishika Fonseka, Groundviews Staff Writer

• Wasted vote!
• Elections in the East
• Are alliances the key in Sri Lanka’s up-coming Presidential election?
• Sri Lanka awaits a change
• The Sri Lankan Voter

This Christmas, we prayed and lit candles for the thousands killed and missing during the war, the ones who doesn’t have a grave as their family members had to run over the dead (and sometimes dyeing) bodies to save their own lives.

Last Christmas, we prayed for a stop to political killings, disappearances, forced recruitments, unjust arrests and torture. And for families of those detained, disappeared, killed.

This Christmas, we did the same.

Last Christmas, we prayed for easing of government restrictions on food, medicine, shelter and access for aid agencies to help the people affected by war.

This Christmas, we prayed for those injured & sick – as they were denied access to food and medicine and were also denied the opportunity to get help from those who wanted to help.

Last Christmas, there were prayers for a military victory during the Christmas mass I attended. Those displaced, detained, tortured, disappeared, killed and their families were forgotten.

This Christmas, God was thanked for the military victory during the Christmas mass I attended. Those displaced, detained, tortured, disappeared, killed and their families were again forgotten.

—

2009 was undoubtedly the most horrible and tragic year in my life. Not because the LTTE was defeated.

But because it was a year that many of my Tamil friends in North had family members killed, injured, starved, and displaced.

Because it was a year that hundreds of thousands of Tamils were detained behind barbed wires or in detention centres just for being Tamil.

Because it was a year that many Sri Lankans, many church leaders, many close friends, promoted, justified and supported a bloody war. And then celebrated and blessed a military victory and refused to even acknowledge & mourn for thousands killed, missing, injured, displaced and detained.

Because it was a year I had spent time visiting people detained behind the barbed wires, those in the hospitals, and towards the end of the year, those who were allowed to go back to what remained of their homes, paddy fields.

Because it was a year that I had to visit brave and committed colleagues and friends in prison and go to courts regularly whenever they were brought before courts.

Because it was a year friends and colleagues were abducted, killed, injured, ridiculed and called “traitors” / “terrorists”. These were people, who stood for justice, opposed war, spoke and wrote the truth on behalf of the oppressed. Amongst these those injured, went missing and died were priests who opted to remain in the war zone amidst shelling and accompany their people. Amongst these were also doctors who were detained and defamed for opting to stay & treat the sick and wounded in makeshift hospitals that were shelled repeatedly and for speaking the truth.

Because it was a year that a friend and colleague I had great admiration and became very attached had to spent his Christmas in prison. He had won praise and awards for his courage and commitment to witness the truth and stand up on behalf of the oppressed, as Jesus had done. But the cost was a long prison sentence for himself. And agony and distress for his wife, parents, family and friends.

Because it was a year many more such colleagues and friends fled Sri Lanka in fear of their lives. Because it is a year that ends with one friend wondering where to go, as his visa expires end of December, he doesn’t have visa for any other country, and he is fearful to come back to Sri Lanka.

Because it was a year that I felt a huge relief that they would be able to live without fear, each time we managed to send someone out of the country for safety. Because each time, I felt a tinge of sadness that they can’t live in their own country – our country – with dignity and without fear.

Because it was a year that I sighed with relief each time a friend or colleague was released on bail. Only to whether they would be safe…remembering those who had been released and then abducted or killed on their way home after being released from detention.

It was through these – the oppressed and those who resisted & struggled against oppression – friends and colleagues I knew and those I didn’t know – that I encountered Jesus in 2009.

2009 was also the year that for the first time, I myself fled the country, in fear of my life, and consider myself fortunate to be alive and relatively free as the year comes to an end.

I was amongst those who experienced Jesus through the love, care and support of few people in Sri Lanka and outside, in a way that I had not experienced before. Those who called, sent a text, emailed and asked how I was. Those who supported me during my time in exile, including the many who welcomed me and hosted me. Those who listened to my stories. Those who shared them with others. Those who appreciated the work I did. Those who critiqued what I was doing in a spirit of love. Those who cautioned me of risks, restrained me and pulled me back sometimes. Those who strengthened me in my faith and enriched me spiritually, through such depressing and hopeless situations. Those who joined me to be with nature and occasional joys & celebrations.

Thanks to them, I will look forward to a better 2010 in Sri Lanka. And I will count on their support and love.

–

Mary gave birth to Jesus as a refugee baby, amongst sheep and shepherds, as no one else offered a room and a roof, just like mothers from the war zone I encountered in Northern Sri Lanka this year.

Days after his birth as a refugee, Jesus’s parents had to evacuate him to a foreign land to protect him from being killed by the rulers of that time who felt threatened by his birth, just like many Sri Lankan parents I met this year, trying to hide their children from shelling, political killings, white van abductions, forced recruitment, arrest and torture.

May this same baby Jesus, “who pitched his tent amongst us (John 1:14)”, and who came to “bring good news to the poor & set the oppressed free (Luke 4:18)” bring peace with freedom and justice to all of us, especially to the displaced, those detained unjustly and families of those who had disappeared and killed.

• Christmas 2008 in Sri Lanka
• Madhu Feast 2009: Another opportunity or obstacle for peace and reconciliation?
• Personal experience of the Vanni today
• Forcible resettlements in East
• My life and my choices in a country at war: A personal reflection

Dushiyanthini Kanagasabapathipillai in Saainthamaruthu

Today is the 5^th anniversary of a tsunami that devastated our country.Five years on, but how many of us still care for the people who suffered?

The tsunami hit the Indian Ocean, killing nearly hundreds of thousands in eleven countries and inundating coastal communities with waves unto one hundred feet. According to experts, it was one of the deadliest natural disasters in recorded history. Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand and India were the hardest hit.

About thirty thousand people were killed in tsunami, millions injured and many more left homeless in Sri Lanka. The tidal waves hit North, East and South coastal areas.

All rushed to the spots to help the victims on December 26^th 2004. People canceled their holidays, and work and took part in the process of recovering dead bodies and clearing debris. I covered the tsunami stories continuously for many months. I have traveled to North, East and South of Sri Lanka to cover untold stories. I kept traveling to the same areas after many years. My memories stand still like statues in my mind. I keep meeting the same people in these areas, where they are still struggling to survive. Most of the survivors are hesitant to recall the memories saying “it brings sadness and they want to pray for their loved ones who were killed to rest in peace”. The memories are sad and unforgettable!

There are 55 families – 205 persons (males-60 persons, females-80 persons, and children-65 persons) still live in tin sheds in Sainthamaruthu (in the Eastern Province), living behind the Jummah Mosque. Their living space is squeezed into few meters. There are only two toilets which are currently functioning, there in only one bathroom for males and females. And only three drinking water taps are in the compound. The place gets flooded immediately when it rains. It is very hot inside during the Sunny days. Snakes are their frequent visitors in the night. Flu and Chicken Pox have been infected by many in the past.

The living space looks congested with few furniture, kitchen utensils and clothes and few of them have pets such as cats and chicken. The residents here are frustrated to continue live under these circumstances. Their houses were under 65 meter buffer zone in Saainthamaruthu. They feel that “they are nobody’s people”. Most them here in Saainthamaruthu think they are not lucky, and curse their fate for being unfortunate. “Will we be getting permanent houses next year?” many ask often, but the question remains unanswered.

• Sri Lanka on tsunami alert after Indonesia quake (Updated)
• Daily Security Report from UN – The plight of the North & East
• A Wave of Relief
• Better Governance: The Biggest Lesson of 2004 Tsunami
• A botched Tsunami Early Warning test – Lessons for the future