Funeral of Pattani Razeek | Photo courtesy of Deutsche Presse Agentur

(Editors’ note: The report below is a follow-up from the last update about Mr. Pattani Razeek’s case, which was published on 17^th August 2011 and can be read here.)

1. Background and key events:

Mr. Pattani Razeek was a Sri Lankan Human Rights Defender who disappeared on 11^th February 2010. At the time of his disappearance, Mr. Razeek was the Managing Trustee of the Community Trust Fund (CTF) (www.ctfsrilanka.org) and an Executive Committee Member of the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) (www.forum-asia.org).

For over a year following the disappearance, there was no credible action by the police to investigate the case despite several leads. The chief suspect Shahadbeen Nowshaadh was not arrested until July 2011, despite being identified by police in May-June 2010.  The family, Puttlam Mosque Committee and those campaigning for justice in the case believe that the failure to arrest Nowshaadh is due to the involvement of Minister Rishad Bathiudeen, the Minister of Trade & Commerce under the current Government.

Arrests of Suspects:  The chief suspect, Nowshaadh was arrested by the Colombo Crimes Division (CCD) in Killinochchi on 9^th July 2011 in connection with Mr. Razeek’s abduction. The second suspect, Mushdeen was arrested by the CCD on 15^th July from Kollonnawa.  Soon after Mushdeen’s arrest, Minister Rishad Bathiudeen told a member of the Puttlam Mosque Committee that Mushdeen’s wife approached him to secure Musdeen’s release, but that he had refused to intervene in the case.

Exhumation (28^th July 2011): On 25^th July, Mr. Razeeks’ son, Riskhan was told by the Director, CCD that the police had received information from suspect Mushdeen that Mr. Razeek’s body had been buried in a village in Vallaichchenai and that police would be travelling to Vallaichchenai for further investigations. Riskhan accompanied the police to Vallaicchenai and on 28^th July, a body believed to be that of Mr. Razeek was exhumed from Thuraiaddy Street, Kavaththamunai, Vallaichchenai based on the information provided by suspect Mushdeen.

Riskhan identified the body as Mr. Razeek’s from his hair and underwear. The body had been wrapped in a sheet and buried in a pit about 4 ½ feet deep, inside a half built abandoned house belonging to Mushdeen’s aunt. The exhumation took place in the presence of the Vallaichchenai Magistrate A.M. Riyal, the Officer in Charge (OIC) of the Vallaichchenai police, several CCD officers, Mundalama police, the Judicial Medical Officer (JMO) Batticaloa Mr. Tikiri Banda Gunethileke, Scene of Crime Officers from Batticaloa, and the suspect Mushdeen. Journalists and civil society members were also present at the time.

Post Mortem: On 28^th July 2011, the body was taken to Batticaloa Hospital by the Vallaichchenai police. The post mortem was conducted on 2^nd August at 10 am at the Batticaloa Hospital. Before the post mortem, Riskan and two of Razeek’s brothers were allowed inside and identified the body as the remains exhumed in Vallaichchenai. The JMO also recorded Riskhan’s statement that he believed M. Nihamath, former Trustee General of CTF, to be responsible for Razeeks’ killing.

The post mortem ended at 1.30pm on 2^nd August, and the body was released to family members based on an order by the Vallachchenai Magistrate. The order mistakenly referred to the exhumation being conducted on 4^th July (instead of the correct date 28^th July), but when this was pointed out to the CCD officers, they assured that this would not be a problem to transport the body or in future court proceedings. Riskan, Ruki Fernando of Law & Society Trust, Mr. Razmi from the Puttalam Mosque Committee and several others noted the discrepancy. Mr. Razeek’s funeral was held on 3^rd August in Sameeragama Puttalam.

DNA Report/Government Analyst Report: Samples of Mr. Razeek teeth, skin, hair, etc were taken by the CCD and sent to the Gene Tech lab for DNA testing on 4^th August 201. Mr. Razeek’s son, Riskhan supplied blood to the Gene Tech Lab on 8^th August 2011.  Stomach samples from Mr. Razeek’s body were sent to the Government Analyst on 5^th August 2011. We do not have court proceedings which indicate whether the postmortem report and the DNA report have been submitted to Court.  However when Riskhan called Genetech regarding the DNA report on 2^nd February 2012, he was informed that the DNA report will be submitted to court in two weeks.

2. Police Inquiries & Court Proceedings

There are currently three police cases (B Reports) pending before the Magistrates Court (MC) in Puttalam (Mr. Razeek’s hometown) and in Pollonnaruwa (place of abduction) based on separate complaints by the Razeek family and CTF. The Puttalam MC case BR177/10 was filed on 16^th February 2010.  The Pollonnaruwa MC case AR 142/2010 had been filed by the police on 4^th March 2010. A further case B 651/11 was filed by the police on 13^th July 2011 to investigate the ransom calls made to the Razeek family following his disappearance.

From 16^th February 2010 until after the arrest of Nowshaadh on 9^th July 2011, Mr. Razeek’s family, the Puttalam Mosque Committee and lawyers and civil society groups campaigning for justice in this case, focused only on proceedings of the case before the Puttalam MC BR 177/10. However, there has been only one hearing of this case since  27^th July 2011 and the submissions on police investigations following the arrest of suspects Nowshaadh and Mushdeen, are being made to the Pollonnaruwa MC in case No.651/2011.

Police Case (B Report BR 177/10/P) pending before the Puttalam MC: Case filed by police on 16^th February 2010 based on the police complaint (No.CIB 01 389 / 187) filed by former CTF trustee Ms. Jensila Majeed to the Puttalam Police on 15^th February 2010.  In around May 2010 police identified Shahabdeen Nowshaadh, a former CTF employee, as the chief suspect in Razeek’s disappearance. Police linked Nowshaadh to the disappearance by tracing calls made from Razeek’s phone number to Razeek’s family after the disappearance. The calls were traced through the phone EMEI number to a phone registered to Nowshaadh. Nowshaadh filed an anticipatory bail application to the Puttalam Magistrates Court on 15^th June 2010. The court rejected his application on 23^rd June 2010 following which Nowshaadh filed a revision petition to the Puttalam High Court details of which are given below. There appears to have been no significant progress in this case until the arrest of the chief suspect Nowshaadh on 9^th July 2011. The last hearing of the case was on 17^th January 2012.

Anticipatory Bail (Revision Petition) (HCR 08/10) concluded in the Puttalam High Court: Following the rejection of his anticipatory bail application by the Puttalam Magistrates Court on 23^rd June 2010, Nowshaadh filed a revision petition to the Puttalam High Court  on 20^th October 2010, challenging the decision of the Magistrate not to grant bail.   In his petition, Nowshaadh admits to meeting Mr. Razeek on 11^th February 2010 and to being in the same area (Pollonnaruwa) at the time that Mr. Razeek disappeared. He also stated that he is a close aid of Minister Rishard Bathiudeen and that his arrest would harm the Minister. This case was dismissed on 28^th July 2011, following Nowshaadh’s arrest by the CCD on 9^th July 2011.

Police Case (B Report A.R 142/2010) before the Pollonnaruwa Magistrate Court:  Case filed by police on 4^th March 2010 based on complaint (CIB 02 33/175) filed by Mr. Razeek’s wife to the Mundalama Police on 12^th February 2010[i].  Proceedings in the B 651/2011 before the Pollonnaruwa MC states that the case (AR 142/2010) was filed by the Pollonnaruwa police regarding investigations carried out in Pollonnaruwa into the disappearance. Proceedings state that police recorded statements from several persons including those who travelled in the van with Mr. Razeek to Pollonnaruwa.

Police Case (B Report B 651/2011) before the Pollonnaruwa Magistrate Court:  B report filed by police on 13^th July 2011, to investigate ransom calls made to Mr. Razeek family, demanding LKR 20 million (approximately USD 170,000) to secure his release. This case is in addition to AR 142/2010 before the Pollonnaruwa MC.  Police submitted that Shahabdeen Nowshaadh and Musdeen had been identified as suspects in Mr. Razeek’s abduction.  On 26^th July 2011, the police submitted that Nowshaadh had made a statement to police that Mushdeen had told him that he had abducted and killed Mr. Razeek. The police also submitted a statement from Mushdeen that he had abducted Mr. Razeek in order to punish him for supporting the LTTE and that he had tied his hands, feet and face with a cloth and left him alone. When he returned 20 minutes later, he realized that Mr. Razeek had died. Mushdeen told police that he buried Razeek in an abandoned house belonging to his aunt in Vallaichchenai.  On 3^rd August 2011, the police submitted a report on the exhumation of a body believed to be that of Mr. Razeek in Vallaichchenai.

On 12^th August 2011, suspect Nowshaadh was produced before the Pollonnaruwa Magistrate and remanded to the Pollonnaruwa Remand Prison. Police submitted that samples of Mr. Razeeks’ body have been given to Gene Tech for DNA testing on 4^th August, 2011. Mr. Razeek’s son Rizkan had provided a blood sample to Genetech on 8^th August 2011. The contents of Razeeks stomach were sent to the government analyst on 5^th August 2011.  The van (no 59-6113) in which Mr. Razeek is believed to have been abducted had been taken into police custody on 1^st August 2011 in Kandy.  The police submitted that so far the investigations have revealed that several more people were involved in Mr. Razeeks abduction.

According to the lawyer representing the Razeek family, on 7^th September 2011 suspect Mushdeen was produced before the Pollonnaruwa Magistrate court and is currently in remand in the Pollonnaruwa Remand Prison.  The last hearing of the case was held on 2^nd February 2012. The next hearing is scheduled on 16^th February 2012.

Bail Application (Nowshaadh) (No. 77/2011) in the Pollonnaruwa High Court: Nowshaadh filed a bail application to the Pollonnaruwa High Court on 13^th October 2011 and was released on bail on 3^rd November 2011. Case concluded.

Bail Application (Mushdeen) in the Pollonnaruwa High Court: Lawyer for the Razeek family has informed us that Mushdeen filed a bail application to the Pollonnaruwa High Court on 2^nd February 2012. The next hearing of this case is scheduled for 16^th February 2012.

Land case before the District Court, Puttalam (No. 57913):  On 7^th December 2011, the Puttalam police filed a land case before the District Court Puttalam to resolve a land dispute between Mr. Razeek’s brother and Mr. M. Nihamath’s relatives who lived near Mr. Razeek’s residence in Mundalama. The next case date is due on 15^th February 2012. Mr. Nihamath’s relatives left the village following the exhumation of Mr. Razeek’s body out of fears for their safety. They have not returned to the village to date. Details of the dispute between Mr. Razeek’s family and Nihamath’s relatives are provided below.

3. NHRC Inquiry

The Razeek family filed a complaint with the NHRC on 15^th February 2011 (HRC/619/10).  There appeared to be no progress in the case until Riskhan was summoned to an inquiry on 4^th July 2011, over a year later. The Inquiry was conducted under no. HRC/621/10/I – iv. On 18^th July 2011, at a special meeting with the family and representatives of lawyers, Puttalam Mosque Committee and members of civil society, the chairman and commissioners of the NHRC committed to conduct the inquiry and to keep the family updated on any further developments in the police case.

At the NHRC inquiry on 26^th July 2011, the Inquiry Officer told Mr. Razeek’s son-in-law, a member of the Mosque Committee and a lawyer that the following a lead given by a suspect that Mr. Razeek’s body was buried in the Oddamvadi area in Vallaichchenai.

At the NHRC inquiry on 20^th September 2011, a CCD officer informed Riskhan and the lawyer that the CCD did not have evidence to arrest or question M. Nihamath in connection with Mr. Razeek’s abduction and killing. The CCD said that several witnesses put forward by the family had refused to make statements to the police. Riskhan told the police, that several CTF trustees and staff had not been questioned by the police and were willing to make statements. The NHRC offered to accept signed affidavits by CTF trustees and staff and submit them to the police.

However on 6^th October 2011, the NHRC refused to accept an affidavit by CTF founder trustees M.S. Rafeek, H.S. Firdous and Jensila Majeed regarding Nihamath’s involvement with CTF and Mr. Razeek’s disappearance and calling for a full investigation into the motives underlying Mr. Razeek’s abduction and killing. The affidavit was rejected on the ground that it did not include a statement that the affirmants would be willing to make statements to the police in this regard. The NHRC asked that an amended affidavit be provided on 12^th October 2011. However, the affirmants have been advised against submitting such a statement by their lawyers since it may impact their credibility as witnesses in the murder trial. There is no further date for the NHRC inquiry.

On 1^st February 2012, the Director of Investigations NHRC, informed a lawyer inquiring into the case, that three complaints had been filed with the NHRC regarding Mr. Razeek’s disappearance;

1. HRC/ 619/10 submitted by Mrs. Noormihar Razeek (Razeek’s wife) on 18^th February 2010
2. HRC 3170/10 submitted by Mr. A. M. U Jaufar (Razeek’s son-in-law) on 15^th September 2010 to the NHRC in Puttalam.
3. HRC 621/2010 submitted by the Executive Director of Forum Asia on 18^th February 2010 by post.

The Director of Investigations also said that the NHRC was keen to continue its inquiry in the case, but that proceedings had stalled due to the failure of Razeek’s family and lawyers to submit affidavits of witnesses who were willing to assist the police investigation in the case. The officer also stated that the failure to submit a DNA report was a matter in which the NHRC could intervene.

4. Meeting with the IGP: At a meeting held at the Defence Ministry on 23^rd August 2011to discuss violent incidents which took place in Puttalam following a Grease Devil attack, Mr. Razmi, Secretary of the Mosque Committee raised Mr. Razeek’s case with the Inspector General of Police (IGP) who was present at the meeting. He told the IGP that the Razeek case was being delayed and a credible investigation prevented due to the intervention of a prominent politician. He also said that there were tensions between the local community and the Northern Muslims over the Razeek case, Mr. Razeek being a member of the local Puttalam community. He asked the IGP to conduct effective inquiries into this case. The IGP told Mr. Razmi that he would look into the matter but no further information is available about what action has been taken to date by the Police.

5. Dispute with M. Nihamaths’ Relatives in Sameeragama

Shortly before Mr. Razeek’s funeral, Mr. Nihamath’s relatives who live in a land near Mr. Razeek’s home in Sameeragama, moved out of the village due to fears for their safety. When they tried to return to the village on around 6^th August, they were prevented from entering their compound by a group of villagers. Riskhan, Azam (Mr. Razeek’s son-in-law) and other family members were also present at the time. Following this altercation, Nihamath’s relatives filed a complaint with the Mundalama police accusing Mr. Razeek’s family including Riskhan and Azam and the villagers of assaulting them and preventing them from entering their home. That evening the police visited Mr. Razeeks home to inquire into the incident.

Razeek’s family informed the Puttalam Mosque Committee about the incident. Nihamath’s relatives also met with the Puttalam Mosque Committee and asked them to intervene in the case. The Puttalam Mosque Committee agreed to intervene, provided the police complaint against Riskhan was withdrawn. Following this the complaint was withdrawn by Nihamath’s relatives.

At a meeting with the Puttalam Mosque Committee and Razeeks’ family, at the Grand Mosque Puttalam, Nihamath’s relatives asked to be allowed to remove their belongings from the compound in Sameeragama. Mr. Razeek’s family said that they could not guarantee the safety of Nihamath’s relatives and asked that the matter be mediated with the villagers by the Puttalam Mosque Committee and the local Mosque Committees in Sameeragama and Perukuwattan.

On 13^th August 2011, a meeting was held at Mr. Razeeks’ home in Sameeragama with the Puttalam Mosque Committee, and the Sameeragama and Perukuwattan Mosque Committees to settle the matter. Following this meeting, Nihamath’s relatives were permitted to remove their belongings on 16^th August 2011.

To date, Nihamath’s relatives have not returned to the village. The land in which they were living, originally belonged to Mr. Razeek’s brother P.M. Mahroof who maintains that Nihamath’s family were allowed to occupy the land based on an agreement between Mr. Razeek and Nihamath. Mr. Mahroof states that he is the owner of the land and has refused to allow the family to re-occupy the land in Sameeragama.

On 21^st November 2011, Nihamath’s family filed a second complaint with the Mundalama police, naming 10 persons in the village including Riskhan as preventing them from returning to their home. Rizkhan and family members went to the police on around 28^th November 2011, Riskhan suggested that the matter be resolved through the Puttalam Mosque Committee. However since there is a dispute regarding ownership of the land, the police filed a case in the District Court, Puttalam on 7^th December 2011.  The case was last heard on 1^st February 2012 and the next hearing is scheduled 15^th February 2012. Pending a final determination in the case, a watcher has been placed in the compound by Nihamaths’ relatives.

6. Threats/Intimidation against the family and Mosque Committee

There have been no known threats against Mr. Razeek’s family or the Mosque Committee since the last update on 17^th August 2011.

However, at a meeting in Puttalam on 8^th December 2011, the mosque committee stated that Mowlavi Abdullah had received a threatening message from number +94773863256 on 12^th Januaary 2011, following a speech made by him to mark the Haj Festival at the Baka Mosque in Puttalam. In his speech, Mowlavi Abdullah stressed that the two communities must not be divided based on Mr. Razeek’s disappearances and that they must work together to defeat the elements which try to divide them. The message sent to Mowlavi Abdullah accused him of being a Muslim Prabhakaran who is trying to evict displaced Muslims from Puttalam. (This is being reported here for the record, as this was not included in the update of 17^th August 2011)

On 16^th January 2012, President of the Puttalam Mosque Committee, Mr. Muzammil was summoned to the office of the Assistant Superintendant of Police and asked to give a statement regarding the killing of policeman in Puttalam in August 2011 in a violent incident following a grease devil attack. Mr. Muzammil was told that a petition had been submitted by the Puttalam Organizer for Minister Bathiudeen accusing the Mosque Committee of inciting the violence in Puttalam on 21^st August 2011 which resulted in the killing of the policeman.

7. Summary / Conclusion:

It appears that the police have not made any significant progress in Mr. Razeek’s case. For several months the police failed to submit a post mortem report in the case. The lawyer for the family believes that a post mortem report was submitted to court but she has not been shown the report and the family has no further information on the progress of the investigation. It appears that the DNA report has not been submitted to court to date.

The date and method used to kill Razeek is not clear.

To the best of our knowledge, the police have made no move to apprehend or question several others implicated in the case including;

• Mr. Irshard, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister Rishard Bathiudeen, who stated publicly, in October 2010, that Mr. Razeek was held by the Defense Ministry;
• Persons travelling in the vehicle with suspect Musdeen, in which according to the suspect, Mr. Razeek was abducted;
• Persons travelling with suspect Nowshaadh, who admitted to meeting Mr. Razeek in Polonnaruwa on the day he disappeared. According to Nowshaadh, he and several others were travelling in a vehicle belonging to the Resettlement Ministry, headed by Minister Bathiudeen at the time;
• Minister Bathiudeen and Mustafa Nihamath, former CTF Trustee General and currently employed at the World Food Program in Colombo. The Razeek family and the Puttalam Mosque Committee believe that M. Nihamath is a key suspect in the case and that his involvement merits further inquiry.  Before the postmortem on 2^nd August 2011, Mr. Razeek’s son Riskhan clearly told the JMO that he believed M. Nihamath to be involved in his father killing. At Mr. Razeek’s funeral on 3^rd August thousands of those present chanted slogans calling for the arrest of M. Nihamath and Minister Bathiudeen.

8. Some key local & international appeals and statements

• The UN human rights office of the High commissioner, Briefing note on Sri Lanka and Malawi, Spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights: Ravina Shamdasani, on behalf of Rupert Colville, 29^th July 2011, available at, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=11273&LangID=E
• Amnesty International, Urgent Action: Remains of Sri Lankan Defender Exhumed (Index Number: ASA 37/010/2011), 29^th July 2011, available at http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA37/010/2011/en/60e694d6-4055-4943-ae6d-2e2c2456f015/asa370102011en.pdf
• Front Line Defenders, Sri Lanka: ‘UPDATE – Arrest of chief suspect in the disappearance of human rights defender Mr. Pattani Razeek’, 12^th July 2011, available at, http://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/15261
• Observatory (OMCT-FIDH), ‘Sri Lanka: Exhumation of a body suspected to be that of the forcibly disappeared Mr. Pattani Razeek’, 29^th July 2011, available at, http://www.omct.org/human-rights-defenders/urgent-interventions/sri-lanka/2011/07/d21358/
• The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), The body of the disappeared human rights activist Pattini Razeek exhumed, 29^th July 2011, available at, http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-STM-099-2011.
• The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), Sri Lanka: Ensure justice in the death of Pattani Razeek, 29^th July 2011, available at http://www.forum-asia.org/?p=10818

9. LLRC Report

The Report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission at page 162, specifically mentions the lack of police action in Mr. Razeek’s case[ii]. The Commission states that;

(Paragraph) 5.31 ‘Among the many disturbing allegations concerning missing persons submitted to the Commission by the general public, especially during its visits to conflict-affected areas, the case of Mr. Razik Pattani in Puttlam, is referred to here on account of the Commission’s own disappointing experience concerning that case. It highlights the deplorable absence of conclusive law enforcement action, despite the Commission itself bringing this case to the attention of the concerned authorities of the area. Mr. Razik’s body was reportedly discovered while the Commission was writing its report. Timely action could probably have saved this life.

(Paragraph) 5. 32 Mr. Razik who had been an official of an NGO providing assistance to the IDPs in Puttalam was abducted allegedly due to the fact that he had questioned the manner in which some of the expenditures have been incurred by the NGO as well as the purchase of some properties under the names of some of its directors. When inquires were made from the relevant Deputy Inspector-General of Police in the area as to why there was a delay in arresting the alleged abductor following a court order, he has reportedly said that the police was not aware of the suspect’s whereabouts and if the people know where he was, let the police know so that they could arrest him. It was alleged in this regard that the suspect evaded arrest due to his “political connections”. If this is established, it must be mentioned that such an attitude would completely erode the public confidence, in particular in the Police, and make the maintenance of law and order much more difficult. The Commission is equally concerned that undue political interference has also contributed to the lapses on the part of the Police.’

by Deanne Uyangoda and Ruki Fernando

• Who Killed Razeek?
• Manufacturing claymores in the Sinhala media – Media ethics withering on the vine
• The case of Jaseekaran and the Rule of Law in Sri Lanka
• The ‘Grease Devil’ Phenomena in Sri Lanka: A Brief Collation of Reports
• Mano Ganesan on his experience of the anti-Tamil riots in July 1983

Whatever the death toll during the last stages of Eelam War IV in 2009 the official government data in that year acknowledged that 11,696 (9078 male and 2024 female)[i] of those who survived had identified themselves or been identified as members of the LTTE — whether combatants or active functionaries. There were others who had been arrested elsewhere in the island (that is beyond the battlefields), often on flimsy evidence, in the years 2006-09. Muralidhar Reddy stresses that “once bracketed in the category of a combatant, irrespective of the degree of their involvement in the war, there was no mechanism for those detained to prove their innocence.”[ii]

In parenthesis let me add that grapevine information from Tamil sources indicate that in April-May 2009 quite a few Tigers seem to have successfully merged themselves with the population that was deemed civilian and placed in the IDP camps in Menik Farm and elsewhere. Several commentators with some familiarity with the IDP camps have indicated that these detention centres were like the proverbial colander and that a significant number – estimates vary widely from 1,000 to 10,000 — slipped out of the IDP camps in mid-2009 and found their way abroad. It is alleged that at least 500 of this lot were “hardcore LTTE.”[iii]

The focus in this essay, however, is on those held in tight security arrangements as Tigers. Unlike those in the IDP camps, these detainees had no access to mobile phones and were under stricter military control. Technically they could be regarded as POWS, but the government, in what must be considered an enlightened policy, chose to treat them as Tigers-in-rehabilitation. The commencement of this policy could be dated to October 2009 when the Bureau of the Commissioner General of Rehabilitation was established. It is this programme that is reviewed here in what is no more than a preliminary survey from afar.

As preface I emphasise that it is quite amazing that no pro-government newspaper or agency provided an in-depth clarification of this programme till Ranil Wijayapala provided a description through a Q-and-A session with the new Commissioner General of Rehabilitation, Major-General Chandana Rajaguru in the Sunday Observer, 9 October 2011. While the BCGR (which works within the Ministry of Rehabilitation and Prison Reform maintains a web-site (namely, http://www. bcgr.gov.lk/), it is unlikely that many people have visited this source or that its data is widely known. I was among those in the dark till last week.

Though government newspapers from time to time highlighted the public ceremonies where ex-combatants were released, this coverage does not seem to have secured much mileage. To the best of my knowledge there have been no U-Tube or CD presentations of the rehabilitation programmes and the graduation ceremonies of release widely disseminated in the internet circuit of universal access. In a word, the prosaic governmental measures of publicity seem to have done a disservice to the work of several well-intentioned officials. Let me clarify why I make this remark by first distilling the information provided in the Rajaguru-Wijayapala dialogue, the mission statements and other data within the BCGR website and data from elsewhere.

Numbers: In differentiation from the figure of 11,800 persons identified as Tigers in mid-2009, Rajaguru[iv] now refers to a rounded figure of 12,000. But, guided in part by th interview as supplement to grapevine informaiton one has to supplement this figure with (a) Tigers captured or arrested in the years 2006-08 and (b) those arrested in the course of intelligence operations subsequent to May 2009. On this foundation I speculate that the figure of Tigers in government custody in the course of years 2009-10 was in the range 11,800 to 13,000. There is, clearly, a need for greater precision in official figures in this field.

This cluster of Tamil Tigers was kept in 24 centres, with four centres catering to the females (2024 less the children). From this total, 594 individuals below sixteen were classified as children and 273 from this lot were sent to attend Hindu College at Ratmalana for schooling[v] and it is this highly specific exercise that received a public airing in BBC’s Hard Talk Programme through the energy of Stephen Sackur.[vi]

The rest were placed under six categories after investigation of some sort: leaders, staunch combatants, fetchers & carriers, political cadre, supporters and labour-conscripts.[vii] A foreign INGO official[viii] who had some interaction with the military once indicated to me in mid-2010 that the Army considered about 15-20 percent of this mass to be hardline LTTE. The implication was that they could be incorrigible and in need of strict supervision if not prosecution in some instances. The answers provided by Rajaguru enable one to conjecture that many of these hardliners and staunch followers would have been incarcerated at Boosa in the south rather than elsewhere.

If all this indicates a tough regime and POW status for these Tiger personnel, other details, a series of events, the details in the BCGR website and the character of the agencies involved in training and alleviating the lives of these Tiger detainees, simply destroy such a verdict. In fact the government insisted on designating the ex-Tigers as “rehabilitees” and proceeded to institute a number of programmes to effect a transformation in their thinking and prospective circumstances. Let me elaborate.

Costs: This was a costly exercise involving the basics of food, clothing and dormitory shelter, plus the organisational costs of training, transport et cetera. At the outset in 2009 and 2010 the government claims that it forked out Rs. 150 million a month though this has gradually wound down to the present figure of Rs. 50 million a month as more and more were “released to their families.” As these ex-Tigers were released several centres have been phased out and by June 2011 there were only 8 remaining.[ix] Rajaguru indicated that a total of Rs.1.3 billion has been spent by GoSL thus far.[x] An IOM representative remarked in February 2011 that they required 15 million US dollars for the programme; [xi] and a British embassy official indicated that “UK [had] contributed £1.5 million to fund vocational training for former child soldiers in partnership with UNICEF and the Sri Lankan Government.”[xii]

A critical component of expenditure was provided by the International Organization for Migration (IOM). IOM’s website includes a mission statement that says: (a) “At present, IOM’s interventions focus on assisting the government to resettle displaced populations in their villages of origin and to reintegrate former combatants, thus supporting national efforts in building peace and stability;” and (b) underlines the importance of  “IOM and state actors [enhancing their] institutional capacity to combat human trafficking and irregular migration” so that  “IOM in partnership with relevant stakeholders offers voluntary returnees a tailor-made return and reintegration package.”[xiii]

As this statement indicates, the IOM has also been heavily involved in financially supporting the resettlement of civilian IDPs from the Menik Farm and other camps. In this task it has been a conduit for monies channelled from the governments of USA, Australia, Netherlands, Norway, Japan and UK. In the Australian case this includes considerable monies coming from AusAid; while the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Australia (DIAC) became one of the agencies working through IOM.

I do not have firm evidence that donor countries have financed the rehabilitation of ex-combatants. But it is of some significance that the ambassador for the Netherlands visited the Tellippalai centre on 16^th November 2010, while the British HC, John Rankin, visited Poonthottam RC at Vavuniya on 22 June 2011.[xiv] This indicates that several countries kept a weather eye on the programme and kept in touch with the IOM for this purpose. It is because of this connection, therefore, that one canpresume that the grand function at Temple Trees on 30 September 2011, which saw the graduation so to speak of 1800 rehabilitees, had a ‘crop’ of foreign dignitaries seated up front, while a few participated in the distribution of certificates.[xv]

Organisation & Rehab-Programmes: While the military supervised the detention centres, Rajaguru’s interview indicates that much of the training was in the hands of uniformed personnel from the National Cadet Corps, many of whom were teachers by profession. Critically, the programmes depicted in skeleton form in the BCGR web site indicate that there were a wide variety of paths deployed to assist the re-orientation of the detainees and to fit them for future life. The statement on the front page of the web site proclaims that:

[the detainees] were provided training in areas such as [the] use of English language, leadership skills, management of small business enterprises, clerical and administrative know-how. Vocational training comprised computer technology, masonry, plumbing, carpentry, arts & crafts, music and drama, food preparation etc. The rehabilitation programme was planned to enable the beneficiaries to engage in self-employment activities following reintegration into society and become fully productive members of civil society.

If my recollections are correct, those Tigers who were university students were released to the Vice Chancellor of Jaffna University quite early in the piece, perhaps in late 2009.[xvi] According to Rajaguru’s recent interview other adults who had foregone their schooling because of the war were permitted to study and sit for either the O-Level or A-Level examinations. One news item indicates that 175 sat for the GCE O/L examination in 2010 (38 passed in all the subjects), while 361 sat the GCE A/L examination (222 passed).[xvii]

What is praiseworthy in this policy has been the emphasis on vocational and technical education rather than the standard clerical streams. In my reading, the education system in Sri Lanka over the past 50 years has been quite sterile because of its overemphasis on paper qualifications and its encouragement of white collar status. Arguably, in the south and centre of the island it has been a process geared to the production of a steady stream of recruits to the radical chauvinist Left associated with the JVP and the JHU.

From this standpoint, then, the vocational, technical and petty business leanings in the BCGR programmes are just what the Tamil peoples and the country-at-large requires for the near future. Critical to this orientation has been the engagement of some mercantile companies in the training programme: Abhina, Holcim, David Pieris Motor Company, Venntures, Virtusa, VUSAA and the Federation of Chambers of Commerce & Industry for instance.

Arbitrary examples of this line of training in reverse temporal order drawn from the long list on the BCGR site are:

• Learning Basic Principles of Entrepreneurship development and training conducted by Survivors Association held at Pampemadu for 40 Rehabilitants … 22 Sept. 2011.
• Palmyra leaves related Handicrafts creations training course continue at Poonthottam PARC facilitated by Survivors Association for 35 Rehabilitants from 6th July to 6th October 2011.
• Leather work training course from 28th February to 10th June 2011 at Thelippalai PARC…. 28 Feb. 2011.
• 2nd Batch Training Course of IDM Computer Training Program was Commenced at Maradamadu Tamil Primary, Technical collage [sic] … 22 Feb 2011.
• 5th batch of David Peris motor mechanic training course was completed… 25 January 2011.
• Masonry related vocational training program Commenced at Dharmapuram PARC for 200 beneficiaries for 15 days. Facilitated by National Apprentice and Industrial Training Authority (NAITA) and Sponsored by Holcim Cement.…. 23 August 2010.
• Vocational training course held at Handwerk Vocational Training Centre, Payagala, facilitated by FCCISL [attend 60 beneficiaries]…. 9-25 August 2010.

In an imaginative leap the BCGR also utilised the actress Anoja Weerasinghe’s social commitment to provide training in dance and drama for some of the former Tigers with the result that a dancing troupe has eventuated and are said to be in great demand.[xviii]

“Release” with Tamasha: Recent official announcements proclaimed that “over 9,500 youth who took arms have been reunited with their families after following rehabilitation in 24 State-run centres;”[xix] though another 1000 or so were still in detention in early October 2011. This release of Tiger personnel has occurred gradually from mid 2010 onwards.[xx]

Several of these moments of “release” have been presented with considerable fanfare in local newspapers aligned with the government. On one occasion the state arranged for public marriage ceremonies for former Tiger rehabilitees and their partners. The largest of these tamashas was held at “Temple Trees” on 30 September 2011 when 1800 ex-Tigers “passed out,” so to speak, as free citizens in front of their relatives and an assemblage of foreign and local dignitaries. A cultural performance (presumably by one of their own troupes) entertained the large crowd, while the High Cpommissioner for Australia, Kathy Klugman, and other ambassadors handed out certificates.[xxi]

Clearly there is a self-congratulatory and propaganda aspect when the GoSL organises such high-profile functions. Generalized cynicism or hostility to the Rajapaksa regime should not, however, lead one to underestimate the implications of such a process. The critical question is this: how do the ex-Tiger fighters and their kinfolk view such moments? The plausible answer is that these ceremonial functions are akin to a graduation ceremony and a momentous point in their life, even conceivably a “transformational” landmark. This is a verdict that I present on a priori reasoning.

Both the images presented in the government media and the responses of released Tigers in brief interviews carried out by pro-government media personnel indicate their delight at the new situation; while video interviews on the BCGR website praise the training received. The outside world may well be skeptical about seeing this evidence as a representation of generalized satisfaction among the former Tigers because it has been mostly purveyed by tame reporters in government run newspapers.[xxii]

The GOSL has not matched its enlightened policy with an enlightened presentation of self in the face of a suspicious world. What is required in such moments is the encouragement and scope for fearless commentators of the Ruki Fernando, Indi Samarajiva and Mutthukrishna Sarvananthan kind, as well as journalists from the Sunday Leader, to speak unmonitored with rehabilitees of their choice.[xxiii] This should have been seconded by the promotion of independent agencies to pursue studies of the process of reintegration at the local level over a period of months. It would seem that the official world is hidebound within a mind-set attached to top-down control and lacks imagination in propaganda techniques, or combines both tendencies, in ways that encourage shortcomings in the dissemination of what could well be a remarkable story.[xxiv]

Monitoring and Process of Reintegration: Rajaguru makes it clear that security concerns also governed the manner of “release” from detention:

Most of them have families. …. We reintegrate people only when have an address of known relatives. We locate them and then only we reintegrate them to society. This is being done by the military intelligence when we provide them with the information given by the rehabilitate (sic). So, they are going back to the people they know. There is no case of any individual being released without background being checked.

These individuals were not just cast adrift. It would appear that the process of resettlement was organised with the cooperation of IOM who used donor funds to provide them with equipment and tool kits. As critically, attention has been paid to the provision of micro-financing, while local banks have been induced to grant “low interest loans with grace periods and a repayment period of ten years.” This line of post-release support is depicted by Rajaguru as a “period of re-insertion” and a process of “community-based rehabilitation” that merges with the resettlement of other IDPs in those parts of the Vanni that were deserted by the inhabitants under the guns of the LTTE as the latter retreated in 2008 and early 2009.

While there is much that is commendable in this subsequent programme, one must exercise caution in accepting these official pronouncements at face value. Such concepts as “reintegration” do not work like mantra and require examination through ethnographic studies of individual biographies and broader processes over time. A study conducted by a triumvirate (de Croos et al 2011) who explored the subjective experiences of 15 former detainees depicts an alarming picture. Several stated that they had received little training. “All ex-detainees stated that the CID and Army visited their homes at least once a week or once every fortnight and checked on their whereabouts and details.” Not all had received IDs and everyone had been instructed to seek permission if they travelled beyond their village. [xxv]

Such restrictions, needless to say, have generated frustration and resentment. The investigators met “three mothers of former detainees from the same villages, two of whom had already left Sri Lanka for safety reasons.” This meant tightening screws of surveillance and spiralling levels of dissatisfaction.

Several of those interviewed also stated that the level of surveillance had increased significantly following the ‘disappearance’ of a woman ex-combatant from the village in late 2010. This person was a senior LTTE carder (sic) who had been released and had returned home to the village. Many believe that she has been taken to India for safety. Following her release, several ex-detainees have been questioned by intelligence officers regarding her whereabouts. Her father and sister were also taken into custody briefly and questioned but were later released.

This is not a pretty tale at all. It reveals that the training provided in the rehabilitation programme is not as comprehensive as it has been made out to be; and that the results are erratic at best.[xxvi] As vitally, the longer-term prospects of goodwill are being seriously undermined by the overwhelming concerns with security. Having classified detainees into several categories in the security centres, the paranoid surveillance methods treat all those released alike. They also seem to be restraining freedom of movement and thus freedom of trade.

Given the extensive networks of army cantonments in the north, given the recruitment of some ex-Tigers into the networks of military intelligence[xxvii] and given the degree to which a wide spectrum of the Tamil population is “conflict saturated” and alienated by the extremism of the Tamil diaspora,[xxviii] the prospects of any guerilla activity re-emerging in the north are minute. The ham-handed vigilance that has been highlighted by Croos et al is therefore as silly as counter-productive.

In brief, the left-hand is removing what the right-hand has sought to achieve. It is not only a question of some unhappy rehabilitees, but the ripples of dissatisfaction that are being generated through the networks of kin, friends and locality. Such ripples will invariably link up with those political figures speaking up for the Tamils. That is as it should be: local politicians must represent their constituency.

What we now require are more in-depth locality studies of resettlement in the Vanni by independent university or research agencies deploying social scientists with the requisite language and ethnographic skills. Such studies should embrace both the civilian IDPs and rehabilitees; and should have some longitudinal temporality built into them.

Our assessments will then be better grounded. It would seem that the rehabilitation programme has been erratic in its processes. Though one can congratulate the government of Sri Lanka for the measures taken to release and help the former Tiger personnel,[xxix] the forms of surveillance that have been set up are extreme and undermine the broader goal of reconciliation. The pleasure revealed by the rehabilitees at their graduation ceremonies will wane if and when they are subject to harassment by local-level minions or restricted in the pursuit of their career goals. They (or some of them) and the Tamils around them will be confirmed in the impression that they are second-class citizens – a subjective reading that has been prevalent in Tamil society for many decades. Rehabilitation of former Tigers and reconciliation between Tamils and the other ethnic communities will only develop solid foundations if political and administrative measures confirm to Tamils their dignity as citizens of equal worth.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abeywickrema, Mandana Ismail 2011 “Rehabilitation and Re-Integration of Former LTTE Cadres,” Sunday Leader, 9 January 2011.

BCGR  n. d. “Reuniting Rehabilitated ex-combatants with their families and Reintegrating them into Society,” http://www.bcgr.gov.lk/

Karunanayake, Samanmali 2010 “Ex-LTTE cadres recalled to a life of fruitfulness,” Daily News, 11 October 2011.

Croos, Fr. J., Deanne Uyangoda  & Ruki Fernando 2011 “Threats, Harassments and Restrictions on Former Detainees and Their Families in Vanni,” 11 May 2011, http://www.globalpeacesupport.com/ globalpeacesupport. com/post/2011/05/14/

Daily News 2010 “Ex-LTTE cadres well looked after — IOM Chief,” Daily News, 18 December 2010.

DeSilva-Ranasinghe, Sergei 2010a “Exclusive Interview with Thirunavukkarasu Sridharan,” South Asia Defence & Strategic Review Sept-Oct 2010, pp. 46-49.

DeSilva-Ranasinghe, Sergei 2010b “Civilian casualties, IDP camps and asylum seekers,” South Asia Masala online, 9 Dec. 2010 http:// asiapacific.anu. edu.au /blogs/southasiamasala/2010/12/09/civilian-casualties-idp-camps-and-asylum-seekers/

DeSilva-Ranasinghe, Sergei 2010c “The 13th Amendment to the Constitution must be properly implemented” says Dharmalingam Siddharthan, www.transcurrents.com, 23 December 2010.

Ferdinando, Shamindra 2011a “Dy British HC says re-integration of ex-combatants important part in reconciliation process,” Island, 27 May 2011.

Ferdinando, Shamindra 2011b “Military visitors see facility rehabilitating LTTE cadres,” Sunday Island, 12 June 2011.

Ferdinando, Shamindra 2011c “LTTE rump ignores ex-combatants undergoing rehab,” Island, 17 June 2011.

Haviland, Charles 2011 “Tamil Tiger releases hit by rehabilitation problems,” BBC News, Colombo 3 Jan. 2011 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12108479).

Irin News 2010 “Sri Lanka: former female fighters strive for a better life,” 29 Sept. 2010 (http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=90613).

Nadesan, Noel 2011 “Australia’s positive role in Sri Lanka,” http://noelnadesan.wordpress.com/ 2011/10/11/australia%E2%80%99s-positive-role-in-sri-lanka/

Radhakrishnan, R.K. 2011 “Former LTTE combatants rehabilitated,” The Hindu, 4 Feb. 2011 (http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/ article1155465.ece).

Sackur, Stephen 2010a “A Sri Lankan re-education for Tamil child soldiers,” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8721974.stm.

Sackur, Stephen 2010b “Former child soldiers rebuilding their lives,” Hard Talk pod cast, in three parts, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf5U5NB9Mk0.

Sriyananda, Shanika 2011 “LTTEers reintegrated bright brush strokes emerge,” Sunday Observer, 9 October 2011…. http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2011/10/09/fea03.asp

Wamanan, Arthur 2011 “Rehabilitation: Beginning a new life,” Nation, 24 April 2011.

Wijayapala, Ranil 2011 “Rehabilitation, resettlement of ex-LTTEers, a success,” Sunday Observer, 9 October 2011.

Long Reads brings to Groundviews long-form journalism found in publications such as Foreign Policy, The New Yorker and the New York Times. This section, inspired by Longreads, offers more in-depth deliberation on key issues covered on Groundviews.

• Response to Michael Roberts’ ‘Turning Former LTTE Personnel into Sri Lankan Citizens?’
• Reconciliation through ‘Rehabilitation’ & ‘Reintegration’ of Ex-LTTE members in Sri Lanka: Separating Fact from Fiction
• Exclusive: Syllabi and timetables from compulsory University ‘leadership’ training course
• Picking up the Tamil Tigers’ scent
• University Students, Military and the Leadership Programme: Observations on the First Session

Fr. Tiruchelvam Nihal Jim Brown | Image courtesy of www.transcurrents.com

Fr. Jim Brown, a Catholic Priest from diocese of Jaffna in Northern Sri Lanka and his associate, Mr. Vimalathas, a father of five people, seem to be just two names and statistics in the long list of disappeared in Sri Lanka, particularly after the escalation of violence and war in the North since 2006.

I didn’t know either before they disappeared, but had got to know about them and the families after they disappeared. I remember the empty and distraught looks on the children of Vimalathas in their small house, who had not realized they will not see and hear from their father again for so long. I remember the hope the parents of Fr. Jim Brown always shares whenever I meet them that their beloved son will return.

Mr. Vimalathas

Background to the disappearance:

Fr Jim Brown and Vimalathas went missing on 20 August 2006 amid escalated warfare between the security forces and separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). They were last seen on a motorcycle at a checkpoint in Allaipiddy, an area tightly controlled by the security forces.

Fr. Jim Brown was a young priest who had loved and served the people of the Allaipiddy parish selflessly. In the face of intense shelling on the night of 12^th August 2006, he had offered the church as a place of refuge to people. However, breaking international humanitarian norms, the church had also been shelled in the early hours of 13^th August, and more than 20 were reported as killed that night and many more injured. Having miraculously escaped death and injury himself, Fr. Jim Brown was at the forefront in trying to lead the people, particularly the injured, to safety. He pleaded with the Navy to let the people leave. According to Catholics priests in Jaffna, Fr. Jim Brown had been threatened by the Navy officers of the area as being LTTE supporter, due to his relentless efforts to protect and support the civilians of his parish. Based on all accounts I had heard from people of Allaipiddy and priests in Jaffna in the last 5 years, Fr. Jim Brown’s disappearance is linked to his efforts to intervene with the Navy to safeguard and assist people affected by the shelling in the area.

Memories of Fr. Jim Brown:

All the people of Allaipiddy were displaced in this incident and when I met some of them in Jaffna some months after the displacement, I remember what one elderly gentleman told me “If not for Fr. Jim Brown, many more of us would have been killed, he sacrificed himself to save us”.

Later, when the first group of displaced people was allowed to return to Allaipiddy, I went to visit them. Access was highly restricted to outsiders, but thanks to pleas of the priest who took me and goodwill of an officer at the check point, we were given a “one hour visa” by the officers at the same check point that Fr. Jim Brown was last seen. The priest taking me had warned me not to say the word “Fr. Jim Brown”. We proceeded to the church that was destroyed and abandoned. We were apprehensive, noting that we were followed by officers from the checkpoint, and remembering that Fr. Jim Brown and Vimalathas were probably also followed from the check point. But despite military presence, the few people who were staying in broken houses and tents flocked to the destroyed church as we entered. Although me and the priest deliberately didn’t say or ask anything about Fr. Jim Brown, the people had a lot to say about him. The lasting memory of that one hour in Allaipiddy was the testimony of several people that some of them would not be alive if not for Fr. Jim Brown’s willingness to provide them with shelter and pleading with the Navy.

Parish of Mandaitivu-Allapidy, which was shelled in August 2006.

The search for Fr. Jim Brown and investigations:

Appeals by church leaders and local and international human rights groups have also not yielded any response. The Commission of Inquiry established by the President in November 2006 listed this case as one of the 16 cases. During the 1^st year commemoration of Fr. Jim Brown’s disappearance in Colombo, and in front of his family and the Catholic Bishop of Jaffna, one of the Commissioners mentioned that the case not yet been taken up for inquiry.

Fr. Jim Brown is not the only Catholic Priest who disappeared. Now, it is more than two years, since the disappearance of another Tamil Catholic Priest from the North, Fr. Franis Joseph, who had tried to negotiate the safe surrender of several LTTE leaders in the last days of the war. Several eye witnesses had seen him with the Army just before he disappeared.

Both these cases have also been raised at the hearings in Colombo and North, of the latest Commission appointed by the President – the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC).  After one priest in North raised this at a LLRC hearing, he got a threatening call the next day, asking him whether he knew Fr. Jim Brown and whether he would like the same thing to happen to him.

Priests are amongst the 25 persons in humanitarian service that have been reported as disappeared between 2006-2009 in Sri Lanka. Thousands of civilians have also disappeared. It is not known how many have been found, and whether justice has been done for even one case.

Fr. Jim Brown’s family is also amongst the families of disappeared who faced threats, intimidation and harassments.

Amongst the principles lesson I learnt (or re-learnt) from LLRC hearings is that it is very easy to make people disappear in Sri Lanka, and that it is also equally easy to make investigations and justice disappear! And related lesson is that those who look for those disappeared and justice, will be threatened and also face risk of disappearing!

Do we need to remember the disappeared?

I remember Fr. Jim Brown’s parents question to the Catholic Bishop of Jaffna, “We entrusted our son to your care to serve the Lord and his peoples, what has happened to him?” Sinhalese Catholics – laity, youth, women, priests, sisters, Bishops – who often claim that they can play a important role in reconciliation by building better relations with Tamil Catholics, appear to have forgotten about Fr. Jim Brown, Vimalathas and others, or perhaps they don’t care.

Every year, a few friends together with parents, brother and sister of Fr. Jim Brown, have tried to faithfully remember Fr. Jim Brown. From the hundreds that attended the first commemoration we organized, we had seen over the years that interest had declined. Perhaps there are so many disappeared to be commemorated. But can we afford to forget them?

Will we ever know what happened to Fr. Jim Brown and Vimalathas and thousands of others who have disappeared? And will those responsible be ever identified and brought to justice?

Can we really have reconciliation without acknowledging what has happened to Fr. Jim Brown and Vimalathas and the thousands like them? Could we even have reconciliation within the Catholic Church? What does reconciliation mean to their families and friends of Fr. Jim Brown and Vimalathas and countless other families of disappeared people?

Ruki, 19^th August 2011

• Disappearance
• Christmas 2008 in Sri Lanka
• Destroying monuments for those killed & disappeared: The Catholic Church and the Sri Lankan Government
• Violating the Madhu Sancuary – Some brief thoughts
• Madhu Shrine: the struggle to preserve the sanctity of a sacred shrine and humanitarian space

Funeral of Pattani Razeek | Photo courtesy of Deutsche Presse Agentur

Mr. Pattani Razeek’s case is a rare instance where the body of a disappeared person has been found, based on information given by arrested suspects. The arrest of key suspects is itself a rare occurrence in the thousands of disappearance cases in Sri Lanka. It is even more unusual that people connected to a Minister in the ruling regime would be arrested for a serious crime.

Razeek’s case had generated mass outrage in his home district of Puttalam. Since the disappearance, protests, signature campaigns, posters and leaflet campaigns were conducted. The family and local Muslim leaders played a prominent role in the campaign. Their efforts were supported at the national level by Razeek’s friends and colleagues, who monitored the investigation and court proceedings, the exhumation, post mortem process and the funeral. 62 Sri Lankan civil society activists including Buddhist and Christian clergy, senior lawyers, academics, media personnel and human rights defenders signed a statement calling for justice in this case.

Razeek’s case also generated international outrage and concern. Many regional and international human rights organizations such as the Asian Centre for Progress of People, Asian Federation Against Enforced Disappearances, Asian Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International, FORUM-ASIA, Frontline Defenders, Minority Rights Group and the Observatory to Protect Human Rights Defenders took up Razeek’s case. The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva also made a public call for justice on the case.

On the day of the funeral, shops were closed in Razeek’s hometown Sameeragama and the district capital Puttalam and other nearby towns in protest. Black and white flags were displayed throughout the town as well as banners condemning the abduction and killing and calling for the perpetrators to be brought to justice.  Media reports estimated that between 5000 – 7000 people attended the funeral. The outrage expressed at the funeral was particularly directed at Minister Rishard Bathiudeen and former Trustee General of CTF, Mr. Mustafa Nihamath, with thousands chanting slogans calling for their arrest.

Key concerns:

The unwillingness of the Police to question or arrest the chief suspect, Nowshaadh, who was identified by the Police as early as May-June 2010,  has raised concerns about political interference in the case. This was fuelled also by statements by the chief suspect himself, admitting his close connections to Minister Bathiudeen. After a major local, national and international campaign marking 500 days since the disappearance of Razeek, Nowshaadh and another suspect Musdeen were arrested in July 2011 and the body was exhumed based on information provided by Musdeen.

However, it appears that the Police have made no further move to apprehend or question several others implicated in the case including;

• Mr. Irshard, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister Rishard Bathiudeen, who stated publicly,  in October 2010, that Mr. Razeek was held by the Defense Ministry;
• Persons travelling  in the vehicle with suspect Musdeen, in which according to the suspect,  Mr. Razeek was abducted
• Persons travelling with suspect Nowshaadh, who admitted to meeting Mr. Razeek in Polonnaruwa on the day he disappeared. According to Nowshaadh, he and several others were travelling in a vehicle belonging to the Resettlement Ministry, headed by Minister Bathiudeen at the time.
• Minister Bathiudeen and Mustafa Nihamath, former CTF Trustee General and currently employed at the World Food Program in Colombo, whose involvement in key aspects of the case merits further inquiry.

It remains to be seen who actually abducted and killed Razeek, and importantly, who pulled the strings and masterminded the actual crime and the cover up.

It is extremely disturbing to note the delays and reluctance by the police, to question or arrest persons who it is reasonably believed, could shed some light on the abduction and killing of Mr. Razeek. Rumors that one or even both the suspects might be released due to political pressure, has renewed doubts that an independent investigation will proceed towards prosecutions and convictions.

Different views have been expressed about whether tensions between the displaced Northern Muslims and host community in Puttalam were a factor in Razeek’s killing. Key Muslim leaders from the host community, who led the campaign for justice despite threats and intimidations, have claimed that tensions between the communities are a factor in the case. Razeek is from the host community and was the only senior and prominent leader in CTF from the host community, while the chief suspect and others implicated as being involved in the case are all from the Northern Muslim community or known supporters. Northern Muslim leaders have however asserted that this case has nothing to do with the tensions between the two communities. Despite the polarization, it is our view that the present situation provides a unique opportunity for both communities to work together by joining hands to fight for justice for Razeek’s case in a proactive manner, particularly by calling for arrest and questioning of all those implicated or believed to have information. During the funeral, Mowlavi Abdulla stressed the importance of unity between the two communities and called on the Northern Muslims to help the struggle for justice regarding Razeek’s case. A positive and proactive response by Northern Muslim leaders and the community towards this call would be a key factor that could help reduce tensions between the two communities.

It is also not clear whether the takeover of CTF by the Ministry of Defense in June 2011, following complaints by Minister Bathiudeen, is linked to Razeek’s case. The many questions raised during the inquiry about Razeek’s disappearance, the timing and the fact that the inquiry conducted by the Ministry of Defense was based on a complaint by Minister Bathiudeen has led to speculation that there is indeed a link between the two.

After Razeek’s disappearance and even after his funeral, attempts have been made to divert attention from key issues related to the disappearance, killing and investigations, by a stream of anonymous emails and documents,  sent to local and international groups concerned about Razeek’s case, alleging that Razeek and CTF were corrupt and questioning whether Razeek was indeed a human rights defender.

It is in this context that we feel that it is crucial for authorities and all concerned groups and individuals to focus on addressing the crucial and fundamental issue of who abducted and killed Razeek and ensure that the perpetrators are brought to justice through a speedy an independent investigation and judicial process.

Background facts on the case:

Mr. Pattani Razeek, born in January 1955, was a well known human rights defender in Sri Lanka and Asia. At the time of his disappearance, Mr. Razeek was the Managing Trustee of the Community Trust Fund (CTF) (www.ctfsrilanka.org) and was an Executive Committee Member of the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) (www.forum-asia.org). Mr. Razeek had also served as a Grama Seweka (Village Government Official) in the Puttalam district.

Description of Disappearance:

Mr. Razeek was last seen near the Jumma Mosque in Kaduruwela, Polonnaruwa (a town in the North‐Central Province of Sri Lanka) at around 3.30 pm on 11^th February 2010. Mr. Razeek was travelling with CTF field staff, when he met a group of people in a van parked behind the Jumma Mosque in Polonnaruwa.  Mr. Razeek approached the group and exchanged greetings in Arabic, indicating that they were Muslim. Mr. Razeek subsequently got into the van, with the group, having told his colleagues that he would be travelling to the Eastern town of Valaichchenai and that he would return to Polonnaruwa the following day.

Calls to Mr. Razeek’s Family, Trustees and Friends

Shortly after Mr. Razeeks’ disappearance, his family and CTF trustees began to receive repeated calls from the abductors using Mr. Razeek’s mobile phone number. The abductors ordered CTF to continue paying Mr. Razeek’s phone bill if they wished to maintain contact with him. Between February and June 2010 the family and trustees received many calls demanding;

• that Rs.20 million be paid as pocket money to the abductors;
• CTF be closed down immediately; and
• the family provide details of CTF assets and that the trustees transfer any properties held in their name to the ‘Nujoom Trust’ a trust set up by Mr. Nihamath (the former Trustee General of CTF) in 2009.

In March 2010, Ms. Rifana, a former CTF employee and close associate of Mr. Razeek, received a call demanding that CTF be asked to pay Rs. 1 million as pocket money to the abductors. Rifana filed a complaint regarding the call with the Puttalam police. The abductors also diverted calls made to Mr. Razeek’s phone from 18^th – 24^th February 2010 to Rifana’s phone number.

CTF and the family agreed to pay the abductors provided they were allowed to speak to or see Mr. Razeek.  On 3^rd April 2010, the family was asked to collect a parcel by the abductors. The parcel which was collected on 4^th April 2010 from the Gunasinghapura Mosque in Colombo, contained Mr. Razeek’s spectacles, keys, watch, driving license, Grama Seveka identity card, bike license and insurance.  These items were sent as proof that Mr. Razeek was being held by the abductors.  On 5^th April 2010, Mr. Razeek’s phone number was disconnected due to non-payment of the bill by CTF. On 11^th April 2010 the family was asked to collect a parcel from the Wattala Mosque, which contained 2 SIM cards. The family was asked to keep one SIM to communicate with the abductors.  The second SIM was to be given to former Trustee of CTF, Mr. Nihamath, who refused to accept it stating that he did not wish to be involved with CTF or Razeek’s disappearance.

The calls temporarily ceased between June and August 2010. On around 15^th August 2010, the family began to receive calls demanding a ransom of Rs.10 million for Mr. Razeek’s release. On 6^th September 2010, the family agreed to pay the ransom but asked to see or speak to Mr. Razeek before the money was paid.  From 6^th September 2010, the calls to Mr. Razeek’s family, friends and CTF trustees abruptly ceased.

Police Inquiry and Court Proceedings

Mr. Razeek’s family lodged complaints with the Police in Mundalama (place of Mr. Razeek’s residence) on February 13, 2010 (no.CIB 02 33/175). CTF lodged complaints with the police in Polonnaruwa on February 14, 2010 (no. MOIB 113/313) and in Puttalam on February 15, 2010 (no.CIB 01 389/187). On February 16 2010, the police filed a case bearing no BR177/10/P in the Puttalam Magistrate Court.

Since the initial complaint, Mr. Razeek’s family has filed several further complaints and statements to the Mundalama, Polonnaruwa and Puttalam police, regarding Mr. Razeek’s disappearance and the ransom calls and threats made against the family.

A Police B report submitted to the Puttalam Magistrates Court around May-July 2010 has identified Mr. Shahabdeen Nowshaadh, a former CTF employee, as the chief suspect in Mr. Razeek’s disappearance. The police have evidence linking Nowshaadh with Mr. Razeek’s disappearance including calls made to Mr. Razeek’s family, on Mr. Razeeks mobile phone number, after his disappearance. The police traced these calls, through the phone EMEI number to a phone registered to Nowshaadh. In his anticipatory bail application, Nowshaadh admits to meeting Mr. Razeek on 11^th February 2010 and to being in the same area (Polonnaruwa) that Mr. Razeek disappeared.

Nowshaadh filed an anticipatory bail application to the Puttalam Magistrates Court on 15^th June 2010. The court rejected his application on 23^rd June 2010. Nowshaadh filed a revision petition in the Puttalam High Court on 20^th October 2010, challenging the decision of the Magistrate denying him anticipatory bail. This case bearing no.HCR 08/10 was dragged before the High Court for 9 months until 28^th July 2011, by which time Nowshaadh had been arrested and was in the custody of the Colombo Crimes Division (CCD).

Despite having identified the chief suspect as early as May/June 2010 the police made no real attempt to apprehend or question Nowshaadh for over a year. On 11^th December 2010, the case was transferred from the Puttalam police to the CCD, following protests by Mr. Razeek’s family and community leaders in Puttalam. However there was no move to arrest Nowshaadh despite information provided by the family and community leaders to the police as to his whereabouts. During this time, Nowshaadh was reported to have moved around freely and has been seen at public events in the presence of Minister Bathiudeen. Mr. Razeek’s family and community leaders believe that the failure to arrest Nowshaadh was due to his close association with Minister Rishard Bathiudeen. In his anticipatory bail application to the Magistrate Court, Nowshaadh claimed to have close links with Minister Bathiudeen.  Nowshaadh stated, in his affidavit to Court, that his arrest would cause irreparable harm to the Ministers’ reputation and work. At the High Court, Nowshaadh was represented by Mr. Saheed, General Secretary to the All Ceylon Muslim Congress (ACMC) of which Minister Bathiudeen is the President.

On 7^th June 2011, Mr. Razeek’s son, Riskhan, received a letter from the Presidential Secretariat informing him that the investigation into Mr. Razeek’s disappearance has been handed over to the Inspector General of Police. On 14^th June 2011 Mr. Riskhan and his relative, Mr. Umar Jaufer, were summoned to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) in Colombo for inquiry. They were informed that the CID would conduct a fresh investigation into the case and that no person would be arrested or any action taken, until the investigation was complete. The family was not given a timeline for the inquiry, which they were told could take up to a year.

Finally on 8^th July 2011, Nowshaadh was arrested by the CCD in Killinochchi as a suspect in Mr. Razeek’s disappearance. Suspect Musdeen was arrested by the CCD shortly after. The remains of a body believed to be that of Mr. Razeek was exhumed in Kavathamunai, Oddamavadi on 28^th July 2011, based on information given by Musdeen.

NHRC Inquiry

On 15^th February 2010, Mr. Razeek’s family submitted a complaint to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) regarding Mr. Razeek’s disappearance. The complaint was recorded under case no HRC/619/10.  Mr. Razeek’s son made a statement to the NHRC in Colombo on 17^th March 2010. The family received no further communication from the NHRC until over a year later, on 4^th July 2011, when Riskhan was summoned to an inquiry at the NHRC.

On 18^th July 2011, responding to a specific request, the Chairman, Commissioners and senior staff of the NHRC met with the family, Mosque Committee, former CTF Trustees and concerned lawyers, civil society leaders in Colombo. The Commissioners assured that the NHRC would conduct its inquiry and ensure that the family would be kept informed of all developments in the police case, particularly when suspects are produced in courts. However, this has not always happened so far and the family has to depend on unofficial sources for information on the latest developments including the dates on which suspects are produced in courts.

Campaign by family, Mosque Committee and civil society groups

We believe that progress in Mr. Razeek’s case is mainly due to the sustained campaign carried out by the family, local community leaders and local, national and international civil society groups and activists calling for justice in this case.

Soon after Mr. Razeek’s disappearance, the family and local and national civil society groups were advised by Mr. Nihamath against carrying out any public campaigns and international appeals on the case. Several misleading e-mails were also sent to donors and other national and international organizations connected to CTF and Mr. Razeek. As a result, civil society groups at the national and international level did not campaign actively on Mr. Razeek’s case for over 8 months following his disappearance. It was only in the latter part of 2010, that a renewed campaign to search for Razeek was begun, when the family approached the Puttalam Grand Mosque and the Puttalam District organization of Muslim Theologians for help, and later several national and international human rights organizations.

The Mosque Committee organized discussions with the Divisional Secretary of Puttalam, lawyers, religious leaders, civil society groups, CTF trustees, local politicians, the Puttalam police and Mr. Nihamath. The Mosque Committee also held discussions with Nowshaadh’s family and the Northern Muslim community on the request of Minister Bathiudeen.

On 26^th October 2010, the Mosque Committee submitted appeals to the Attorney General, Inspector General of Police (IGP), Secretary to the Ministry of Defense and the Presidential Secretariat regarding the lack of any investigation into Mr. Razeek’s case. The letter from the Presidential Secretariat on 7^th June 2011 is believed to be in response to the complaint submitted in October last year.

25^th June 2011 marked 500 days since Mr. Razeeks’ disappearance. In the 17 months following the disappearance, protests and poster campaigns have been held by community leaders and civil society organizations in Mr. Razeek’s hometown and in the Puttalam District. The campaign for justice in this case has been sustained despite attempts to threaten, intimidate and silence Mr. Razeek’s family and individual and groups organizing or participating in such events. On 24^th June 2011 the Mosque Committee and family organized a signature campaign in Puttalam and distributed handbills appealing to Minister Bathiudeen and the police to surrender Nowshaadh and find Mr. Razeek.

Internationally, appeals relating to Mr. Razeek’s disappearance and killing and the lack of any credible investigation by the local police have been made by several international human rights groups, including at the sessions of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in March 2011.  Formal complaints have also been lodged with the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders and the UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights also called for justice in the case immediately after the exhumation of the body.

Obstructions and threats against the family, CTF Trustees and the Mosque Committee

Mr. Razeek’s family and those campaigning for justice in his case have been threatened and intimidated on several occasions. Mr. Razeek’s son, Riskhan and his son-in-law Azam received threatening calls in May 2010. On 15^th May 2010 the abductors threatened Azam’s mother that he would be killed if he did not agree to the abductors demands. A police complaint regarding the threats was filed with the Mundalama police on 16^th May 2010.  Also in May 2010, CTF Trustee Mr. Nafeel was threatened that he would be shot dead in Puttalam if he continued to campaign in Mr. Razeek’s case.

In October 2010, Mowlavi Abdullah, a member of the Mosque Committee, was threatened by Mr. Saheed, Nowshaadh’s lawyer in the anticipatory bail case and Secretary of the ACMC, that he would report Mowlavi Abdullah to the Defence Secretary Mr. Gotabhaya Rajapakse and that he will be shot dead in Puttalam if he continued to intervene in Mr. Razeek’s case.

Rifana, civil society member and former CTF employee received threats in February 2010 that she would suffer the same fate as Razeek if she did not provide information on CTF assets and her relationship with Razeek. In July 2010 the abductors threatened to harm Rifana’s son if she did not comply with their demands.

Members of the Mosque Committee received fresh threats in July 2011 during the campaign to mark 500 days since Mr. Razeek’s disappearance. From 24^th June 2011, Mr. Razeek’s family and the Mosque Committee conducted a signature campaign and distributed handbills in Puttalam and nearby towns and villages. Members of the Mosque Committee have received threats and been accused of misusing Mosque property for the campaign.

On 3^rd July 2011, at around 10.56 pm, Mr. Ajmail, secretary to the Mosque Committee, received a missed call on his mobile phone from no. +94729122269. At around 11 pm he received a message from the same number threatening to destroy him if he continued to campaign for Razeek’s case. Mr. Ajmail filed a complaint with the Puttalam police on 4^th July 2011. He received several more missed calls from the same number on 5^th July 2011. A few days prior to Mr. Ajmail had been summoned to the office of Minister Bathiudeen, after an event organized by the Northern Muslims was cancelled due to protests by the Mosque Committee.

Shortly after Mr. Razeek disappeared, leaflets were distributed in Puttalam, accusing Mr. Razeek of being a CIA agent and a womanizer who was having an affair with a female trustee of CTF. One leaflet, appealed to Minister Bathiutheen to intervene and punish CTF trustees for their involvement with Mr. Razeek.

More recently,  while Muslim leaders were trying to organize the closure of shops on the day of Razeek’s funeral, a group calling itself the ‘Puttalam Traders Association’ distributed a leaflet dated 1^st August 2011, stating that shops can remain open. However, in the end, all shop owners abided by the request of the Grand Mosque Committee and shops were closed in Sameeragama, Puttlam and nearby towns on the funeral day.

In the days leading up to the funeral, there were several rumours alleging that the Mosque Committee was plotting a campaign against the Northern Muslim community in Puttalam, resulting in a police inquiry against the Mosque Committee. There were rumours that the Puttalam Grand Mosque had issued a notice asking displaced Northern Muslims to vacate Puttalam, and based on which, some shops owned by this community, located along the Puttalam – Colombo highway in the village of Erukilampitty, were vacated.   “Navamani” a Tamil newspaper, on 31^st July (Sunday) carried the headline “Tension in Puttalam and Valachchenai”. The Grand Mosque assured all concerned that the rumours were baseless, and as it turned out, the funeral ceremony was conducted peacefully with no cause for unrest between the host community and the Northern Muslims. During the funeral, Moulawi Abdulla called on the Northern Muslims community to join hands to fight for justice for Razeek.

State Response

For over a year, State authorities including the police and NHRC failed to respond effectively to Mr. Razeek’s disappearance. The police were unwilling to arrest the chief suspect Nowshaadh despite clear evidence linking him to the disappearance. Statements and responses by Government ministers, their aids and the State media during this period appear to have been aimed at undermining or preventing an effective investigation into the case.

On 13^th October 2010, at a meeting at Puttalam Zahira Primary School, the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister Bathiudeen, Mr. S. R. M. Irshad, made a public statement, accusing Mr. Razeek of being an intermediary through whom funds were transferred from the CIA to the LTTE during the war. He also announced that Mr. Razeek was being held in the custody of the Ministry of Defense. This claim was not investigated to the best of our knowledge.

The media supportive to the state, have also published misinformation regarding the case including an article in the Lankadeepa, a Sinhala newspaper, on 2^nd July 2010, which quoted police sources as saying that Mr. Razeek had been kidnapped by an extremist Muslim group.

In November 2010, Minister Bathiudeen speaking at a public meeting organized by the Mosque Committee, promised to write to the IGP asking for action to be taken in Mr. Razeek’s case. The Minister also said that if the IGP failed to act within 2 weeks, he would take the matter up with the Defence Secretary. Minister Bathiudeen submitted a letter to the IGP on November 12, calling on the police to take necessary action in the Razeek case. However no action was taken based on this letter and the Minister took no further steps until 27^th June 2011 when he again offered to arrange a meeting with the Defence Secretary regarding the case.

On 25^th June 2011 an event organized by the Northern Muslim community, which Minister Bathiudeen was due to attend, was cancelled due to protests by the Mosque Committee. Following this incident, on 27^th June, Mr. Ajmail, Secretary to the Mosque Committee was summoned by Minister Bathiudeen who accused the Mosque Committee of tarnishing his reputation by linking him to the Razeek case. At this meeting the Minister challenged the Mosque Committee to take up the case with the Defence Ministry and offered to set up a meeting with the Defence Secretary if the Mosque Committee wanted it. Several days after this meeting Mr. Ajmail received threatening calls and messages on his phone. The Mosque Committee also received letters from Mr. Irshaad, Mr. Bathiudeens’ parliamentary secretary and from the organizer of the event that was cancelled on 25^th June 2011. Irshaad in his letter dated 1^st July 2011, accused the Mosque Committee of defaming Minister Bathiudeen and of misusing Mosque resources for Mr. Razeek’s campaign.

Despite the delays, there have been significant developments in the Razeek case since the June 2011 campaign marking 500 days since Razeek’s disaperance. The NHRC inquiry appears to have been re-commenced and two suspects, Nowshaadh and Musdeen were arrested by the CCD on 8^th and 13^th July respectively. Mr. Razeek’s body was exhumed on 28^th July based on information given by Musdeen and the post mortem was held on 2^nd August.

Takeover of CTF management by the Ministry of Defense:

In a parallel development, the Community Trust Fund was taken over by the Defence Ministry in June 2011. CTF has been under investigation by the NGO Secretariat since shortly after Mr. Razeek’s disappearance. The inquiry is based on a petition submitted by Minister Bathiudeen to the NGO Secretariat alleging financial mismanagement and malpractice against CTF and its trustees.

On 9^th June 2011, CTF received a fax copy of a letter by the Defence Ministry appointing the Chairman of an Interim Board of Management which will take over the management of CTF for a period of two years or until the completion of an inquiry by an Investigation Board appointed by the Defence Ministry. CTF received no other communication regarding the takeover and there is no clear indication of the basis or grounds for such action against the organization. Although CTF asked time till 20^th June to comply with the request to handover documents, records etc., the Interim Board went to CTF on 16^th June 2011. The day to day management of CTF, including the disbursement of funds for projects and staff, travel of staff out of the office etc. is strictly controlled by the Interim Board which includes a senior military officer and two government officials.

The NGO Secretariat initiated an inquiry into CTF in December 2010.  The Inquiry Board comprising of Mr. D.W. Abeywickrema, M. Meththapala and Mr. T.G. Ariyadasa conducted two hearings with CTF trustees and directors on 6^th and 14^th December 2010.  CTF trustees, Mr. Firdhaous and Ms. Jensila Majeed, CTF Executive Director, Mr. Fawas and CTF Program Director, Mr. Suhuri were present at the inquiry. Minutes of the Inquiry Board state that the inquiry was based on a petition submitted by Minister Rishad Bathiudeen and Mr. Hunais Farook M.P. to the NGO Secretariat on 12^th November 2010 alleging several points of mismanagement against CTF. Several of the issues raised at the inquiry related to Mr. Razeek’s disappearance and the actions of CTF directors and trustees in the aftermath.

On 27^th December 2010 CTF submitted an official letter to the NGO Secretariat, objecting to the manner in which the inquiry was conducted and asked that Minister Bathiudeen and former Trustee General Mr. M. Nihmath be present at the inquiry. CTF did not receive a response to this letter.

On 22^nd February 2011 a meeting was held at the Temple Trees with Mr. Douglas Nanayakkara, Director of the NGO Secretariat and CTF Trustees Mr. Riskhan, Mr. Firdhaous and Mr. Rafeek and the CTF Executive Director, Program Director and Finance Director. The meeting was organized by Mr. Nimal Weerasekara, private secretary to Mr. Namal Rajapakse M.P. (son of president Rajapakse). At the meeting it was agreed that CTF would continue to function as usual within the ambit of the program plan given to the NGO Secretariat. With regard to the CTF inquiry, Mr. Nanayakkara told the trustees and directors present that the matter had been taken up at the highest level and that CTF would be informed of the final decision. CTF has had no further contact with the NGO Secretariat until the letter from the Defence Ministry on 9^th June 2011.

It appears that the CTF inquiry and subsequent takeover are not independent of Mr. Razeek’s case particularly since the petition which led to the initial inquiry was sent by Minister Bathiudeen shortly after Mr. Razeek disappeared.

Ruki & Deanne, 17^th August 2011

• Who Killed Razeek? And Why? Unanswered Questions Two Years After His Abduction
• Disappearance
• Mano Ganesan on his experience of the anti-Tamil riots in July 1983
• DISAPPEARANCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS & POLITICAL ACTIVISTS LALITH KUMAR WEERARAJ AND KUGAN MURUGAN ON 9TH DECEMBER 2011
• The protest by Wimal Weerawansa against the UN in Sri Lanka: Condoned by government?

Featuring satire, poetry, photography and video to critical commentary and analysis, Groundviews covered major political events and processes in Sri Lanka over 2010.

The site’s comprehensive coverage of the first commemoration of the end of war in Sri Lanka resulted in the publication of a seminal book that has been critically acclaimed by academia. Coverage of the 18th Amendment to the constitution was sui generis – content featured on Groundviews was completely absent from the Sinhala mainstream media, and only briefly touched upon in most English mainstream media. Only Groundviews looked at the real cost and symbolic violence of celebrations welcoming the President’s second term in office. This site exclusively featured accurate accounts of testimony to the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) by key witnesses, including those given by renowned diplomat Jayantha Dhanapala and former Secretary of Defence, Austin Fernando. Furthermore, particularly disturbing testimony to the LLRC, first published in the Tamil language print media, was translated to English and republished for a wider appreciation and greater awareness. No other mainstream media in the country reported on these contested, yet deeply disquieting submissions in full.

Collectively commented on over four thousand times and viewed close to ninety-thousand times from January 1st to December 30th, the twenty most read articles for 2010 are:

1. Wikileaks on Sri Lanka: A breakdown and implications, Groundviews
2. Peace and Reconciliation in Sri Lanka: Is there a way forward?, Lionel Bopage
3. Akon and Buddhism in Sri Lanka, tis-a-small-word
4. PRABAKARAN MUST BE LAUGHING, Seethi Ironi
5. The Agnostics vs. The Believers regarding karma, reincarnation, nirvana as described in Buddhism being real aspects of this world, Sujewa Ekanayake
6. Banyan News astrologer analyses planetary event on 26 January 2010, BNR
7. Colombo goes under water, and not for the first time, Kanishka Ratnapriya
8. Vanni in the year after war: Tears of despair and fear, Ruki
9. Monsoons: Another western conspiracy against Sri Lanka?, BNR
10. Aroused by Akon’s Sexy Bitch: the Rise of Sinhala-Buddhist Fundamentalism?, Kalana Senaratne
11. Hard Talk, Dr. P. Saravanamuttu
12. The 18th Amendment to the Constitution: Process and Substance, Groundviews
13. Celebrating sexist, lewd live television in Sri Lanka, Iromi Perera
14. Life is no better for many migrants in UK, Pearl Thevanayagam
15. Surveys with conflicting outcomes, C.A. Saliya
16. The Return of Sarath Fonseka: An Enduring Headache?, Kalana Senaratne
17. The ‘Sinhala-Nationalist’s Burden’, Kalana Senaratne
18. Jaffna after the war: Observations by a visitor, Ms. Leela Isaac
19. Outcome of presidential elections in Sri Lanka: Is there anything to analyse?, Kusal Perera
20. THE POLITICAL LESSONS OF THE SMILING ASSASSIN: MURALI, CRICKET AND SRI LANKAN IDENTITY, Publius (Asanga Welikala)

The visualisation of this content reveals an emphasis on politics including party politics, peoples and race relations, religion and government including constitutional issues. The LTTE and war as central topics of discussion have given way to post-war concerns over governance, rights and democracy, including cultural issues. Two of the most read articles are in-depth features on the conditions in the Vanni and in Jaffna post-war, suggesting a gap between popular rhetoric and ground realities.

• Archive of Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) submissions and media reports
• LLRC: Testimony by Ferial Ashraff
• Content digest: Full coverage of the 18th Amendment, 1 – 9 September 2010
• Happy New Year!
• Sri Lanka’s and South Asia’s first citizen journalism iPhone app

Language is important to us all. Our genetics gives us unique power to model grammar on dedicated neural circuitry and acquire linguistic skills from very sparse data. Of its importance, someone told me in primary school that language can be used in three ways: to express thought, to hide thought and as a substitute for thought. (I am not sure where that quote comes from, but my guess is, like with all cute things you learn at prep school, W. H. Samaranayake’s English with a Smile may well be the source – I don’t have the book to check, but this point is not important for the rest of this article.)

Speaking of the use if Sanskrit in Hindu temples, I remember questioning it in my teenage days, just like Nazeeya Faarooq. “Why should I sit cross legged in front of this priest and listen to him chanting something I don’t even understand?” I protested at some temple event. An old man who had studied Sanskrit at Hilltop University in Sri Lanka calmed me down: “It doesn’t matter if you don’t understand any of it, the priest doesn’t either!” According to the old man’s estimate, the priest has just written the mantras in Tamil script and memorized them.

Digressing a bit, can you actually tell, you might wonder – if someone knows what they are talking about, just from the way they are speaking, even if they get the pronunciation correct? Intonation, I think it is — not what you speak, but the way you speak it, the sing-song way you change your pitch as you speak, and the way you put pauses between phrases to catch your breath. Get it wrong, and a native speaker will immediately know you are just reading transcribed text of a foreign language that you are yet to master.  For example, native speakers of Tamil travelling by Sri Lankan Airline can immediately tell that the announcement in Tamil “Kappiththaan Wickramanayake unkalukku nalvaravu koorukiraar” (Captain W welcomes you aboard), is being read off written Sinhala text. (I know for sure, she showed me.)

At Bridgetown, I learnt this the hard way from a professor. At weekly meetings, I would suggest ideas about my project, and he would say they were interesting. After two months or so of it, my ego took a trip up the stratosphere. Me, a little guy from a developing country, making suggestions which the know-all professor, an authority on the subject, found to be interesting! Wow. On one of those rare days I felt a bit self-critical, I experimented with my ego by making completely silly suggestions, bordering violations of the Laws of Thermodynamics, and to my surprise the advisor found these to be interesting too. It was then I realized it was not the word “interesting” that mattered, the information content was in how precisely it was said — the intonation superposed on the spoken word. Of the story so far, “Interesting?” I ask you. “Interesting!” you say to me (But “boring”, you might actually mean).

The purpose of intonation differs in different languages. In English, for example, you can use it to change a statement into a question. Compare saying “It’s raining.” as a statement and “It’s raining?” as a question – all you have changed is the intonation, superposing a little sing-song like pitch onto the former, gets you the latter. We don’t do this in Tamil or Sinhala, I believe. “mazhai peiyuthu” the statement doesn’t change to a question just by speaking it differently. We change the text to “mazhai peiyuthaa”. Similarly, “vahinavaa” the statement changes to “vahinavaathe” when it becomes a question, doesn’t it? (I once measured pitch changes in spoken Tamil. South Indian spoken Tamil differs significantly from Jaffna Tamil, making very large pitch excursions, but it was hard to pin point what precisely the communicative function of it was, if any – languages evolve, sometimes with a purpose, at other times without.)

You could run into trouble speaking a foreign language at times, you might have experienced. It is best illustrated in this silly joke: There were three cows grazing in the Scottish Highlands one rainy afternoon. “moo” said the first. “moo” said the second. “baa” said the third. “Cows don’t say ‘baa’”, protested the first, “You should say ‘moo’, as proper cows do, that is our cow culture.” “Just ignore her dear”, said the first, “she is showing off her foreign language skills.”

Let me take you back to Nazeeya Faarooq’s objection to doing it in a foreign language. I recently attended a Hindu wedding ceremony in London with a friend, where the priest who did the formal part injected some novelty into the session by doing it all in Tamil. My friend was quite excited by this: “This is great, this is the way to preserve our language, or else it will die”, etc. We listened. As the priest got to the part of blessing the bride and groom, he says to the bride: “thou shall be a proper wife to your husband and do thy duty by bearing him healthy children.” My friend’s face went flat. “Better if he had done it in Sanskrit”, he said in a monotone voice with no intonation, “at least I wouldn’t have understood anything.”

(Oh, there is something I forget to tell you. My friend and his wife are awaiting a hospital appointment for In Vitro fertilization treatment.)

• A-Z of Sri Lankan English: I is for isn’t it?
• A-Z of Sri Lankan English: L is for link language
• “Oya Sinhalade? Demalade?” – Questioning a question in post-war Sri Lanka
• B is for balls (and bowls)
• Is it a crime to be a Tamil in Sri Lanka?

Despite my horror for cynicism, I find myself defeated into just that. While I would like to confine my ranting to discourses with my imaginary friend, reading Ruki’s post From the Tiger’s Den to an Open Prison and the comments made to it just tipped the scale on sanity. So I decided to put it out there in the hope that it will comfort the ailing and ail the comfortable.

Given the masterpieces one is fed via some media, one wonders if our media is mature enough to be free.

Take for example the following articles which appeared in the Sunday Observer over the past month.

1. Two articles Distorted images – Australian media coverage on conflict in Sri Lanka and Biased reporting – BBC has done it again! by Indeewara Thilakarathne and Ranga Chandrarathne (published on 30th March and 13th April 2008 respectively)
2. United country say Jaffna residents by Anushka Nanayakkara and Chandrika Perera (published 20th April 2008)

I humorously term the style as being in Twiddledee & Twiddledum(b) vein though I must say that whereas the original Twiddledee and Twiddledum probably attempted to present two sides to a story through their rivalry, these articles are more in the character of one-sided tirades in which both authors seem to share the same opinion.

Now in a vain attempt to dilute cynicism, I have to subject you to my humour.

If you feel you can take it please read on. If not, best to log off and do something else.

1. If truth and objectivity are essentials for a news story, how would you rate above stories on a scale of 1-3 (1-High, 2-Medium, 3-Low) in the following criterion?

a. Bias
b. Balance between objectivity and skepticism
c. Reporting of events and situations as they are (as opposed to how they should be)

2. What would you say are the motives of the authors named in (a) above as perceived by yourself when you read the article? To inform the public on

a. Media responsibility
b. The inferiority of the above media channels
c. Presence of international conspiracies against the security and sovereignty of Sri Lanka
d. The superiority of Sri Lanka’s policy on the war on terror as opposed to similar global initiatives (i.e. America in Iraq and Afghanistan)

3. What would you say are the motives of the authors named in (b) above as perceived by yourself when you read the article? To inform the public on

a. The untruthful nature of reports by residents of/visitors to the peninsula on the level of terror, hunger, humiliation, loss and suffering prevalent in an area under government control
b. The contrast between the noble intentions of the government of Sri Lanka and the cruel nature of the LTTE (just in case the public may not have truly perceived it despite the many reports and statements issued by the Media Centre for National Security)
c. The untruthful situation on restrictions on media to access these areas and report findings
d. Their gratitude towards the government of Sri Lanka and the military officials for the story to which they could proudly attach their names

4. Would you say that the above articles tend towards government propaganda (which incidentally is an element of media restriction)?

a. Yes
b. Not at all. That’s what the international community would like to think.
c. Possibly but that’s not the point. We are at war and if we are true Sri Lankans we have to back the government regardless of truth and common sense

5. If you answered (c) above, would you say that media freedom would interfere with the government’s initiative to continue its war on terror in Sri Lanka and as such should not be allowed?

a. Absolutely
b. Not at all. That’s what the international community would like to think.
c. Possibly but that’s not the point. The media should be free to report what it is told to report

6. Keeping in mind the old adage that with freedom comes responsibility; would you say that the majority of local media have a long way to go before they can be entrusted with such responsibility?

a. Yes
b. Not at all. That’s what the international community would like to think.
c. Possibly but that’s not the point. We are at war and as loyal and patriotic citizens of our motherland we must stand by our government regardless of truth and common sense (which probably includes swallowing everything we are fed via media reports without questioning it)

7. As a citizen of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, how do you feel about your part in protecting the future of your motherland?

a. Very good. I am a loyal and proud citizen of Mother Lanka and I will not tolerate anyone criticizing those in power and their actions.
b. Fairly ok. I read all the papers and watch all the news programmes so I am fully aware of what is going on and able to have vigorous debates with my friends over a drink or two
b. Fairly ok. I read all the papers and watch all the news programmes so I am fully aware of what is going on and able to have vigorous debates with my friends over a drink or two
c. Like Alice in Wonderland. At the mercy of the Mad Hatter, the March Hare, Twiddledee and Twiddledum(b) and the other cronies

Thank you for obliging.

• A response to “News websites caught red-handed doctoring video to make president look racist”
• Tiran Alles and the Media War
• Award Winning Citizen Journalism – Looking back at 2008
• Double standards?
• Journalist Pakkiyanathan Vijayashanthan who went missing reported to Badulla Police station

Ruki Fernando of the Law and Society Trust speaks about the present situation in Mannar, Sri Lanka.

Click here for the video in Sinhala and here for more videos from Vikalpa Video.

For more articles by Ruki on the embattled North and East of Sri Lanka, click here.

• Present situation in Jaffna: A video interview in English and Sinhala
• Current situation in Jaffna, Sri Lanka: A resident speaks out
• Interview with Mano Ganeshan on abductions of Tamils in Colombo
• Prof. Rohan Samarajiva on whether the LTTE is really finished and the war over in Sri Lanka
• Dr. Wickramabahu Karunaratna on whether the LTTE is really finished and the war over in Sri Lanka

For centuries, Madhu Shrine has been a sacred place of worship for Catholics from all over the country as well as non Catholics. In the last three decades, as battles raged around it, the Madhu Shrine had withstood countless challenges and offered refuge to thousands of displaced people. It was recognized locally and internationally as a “safe haven” for the displaced.

From place of refuge and worship to a military – political prize
Madhu Shrine may not be a strategic military target for either the government or the LTTE.

But the government is clearly determined to capture control of the Madhu Shrine, situated in the “Madhu Church Reservation”, an area gazetted under the Pilgrimage Ordinance. The capture of Madhu Shrine would serve as useful political propaganda, to claim that that it had “liberated” the Madhu Shrine. Many Sinhalese Catholics, including religious and clergy, ignorant of realities in the North, may very well fall hook line and sinker to this “liberation” propaganda. I can almost picture government sponsored celebrations in Madhu shrine, and some Sinhalese church leaders and Catholics in the South “thanking” the government forces for “liberating” Madhu, though I hope that I would be proven wrong.

Judging by its past record of utter disregard for places of worship, religious leaders and devotees (I remember the massacre at the Sri Maha Bodi, Arantalwa massacre, the Dalada Maligawa bombing, and the massacre of Muslims at Kattankudy Mosque and countless others) I’m under no illusion that the LTTE will fight to safeguard the Shrine and its religious and humanitarian nature. But the LTTE is likely to fight tooth and nail to prevent government forces from taking control of the Madhu Shrine. It’s capture by the government forces would be a huge political defeat for the LTTE. They would want to prevent the government from claiming “liberation” which they know ordinary Sinhalese and Catholics are likely to swallow.

I would think both sides would try to avoid damaging the Shrine. But as political imperatives of not letting the other party take control of Madhu Shrine area and efforts to demonize each other takes precedence, it is possible that the Shrine will be damaged unintentionally or even deliberately. Both sides will of course, blame each other, as they have done over a number of years over a number of incidences and more recently even over Madhu.

The stand of the local Church
In the middle of this bitter fight stands the Catholic Church in Mannar. Its leader, Bishop Rayappu Joseph, has been outspoken on human rights violations, often personally rushing to sites of massacres, attacks and offering the country and the international community an alternative perspective on the situation in his diocese that spans the Mannar and Vavuniya districts. Priests under him, has been doing very much similar work, with much less publicity, often intervening to protect and assist victims of human rights violations. Often called “Tiger sympathizers” by even Sinhalese Catholic clergy and devotees, few would know the tensions they have had with the LTTE, particularly the Bishop and the Administrator of the Madhu Shrine, as they strived to be a voice for the voiceless civilians.

The local Church which administers the Madhu Shrine, has been consistent in it’s position.
• Madhu Shrine should be under complete and sole control of the Church
• Neither the LTTE nor government forces should enter the Shrine area
• The Shrine should not be used for military, political and propaganda purposes by either party

Towards this, the Bishop of Mannar, supported by the Catholic Bishops Conference of Sri Lanka, has repeatedly appealed to the President of Sri Lanka, in writing, as well as in face to face meetings to declare the Madhu Shrine area as a “Zone of Peace” through a special gazette notification. The LTTE had indicated to the Bishop that it will accept such a “Zone of Peace”. But todate, there is no concrete response from the President. It seems that President prefers his armed forces to capture Madhu Shrine than declare it a “Zone of Peace”.

The myth of liberation
Being a frequent visitor to Mannar, I know that people in Mannar live in fear of security forces, as disappearances, killings, arbitrary arrests and detention, torture, beatings, harassment including sexual harassment have been rampant for decades and continue to be so. The kind of “liberation” dished out by security forces is not what Mannar people would welcome. A case in point is the fate of the people who were forcible displaced from Arippu, Silavathura areas by security forces, driven by military and political considerations over humanitarian needs. Despite claims of “liberation” and promises to send them back in 3 days, 4 months, these people are still not allowed to go back to their homes and lands, and forced to live in refugee camps and with host families, more than 7 months after “liberation”.

This certainly doesn’t mean that people have confidence in the “liberation” espoused by the LTTE. People fleeing Vanni in recent times, overcoming severe restrictions imposed by the LTTE, and stories of struggles by church leaders and others to intervene with the LTTE on behalf of the people harassed by the LTTE, bear testimony to this. The LTTE has a record of abuses, such as forcible recruitment including children, as well as targeting of civilians, dissenting Tamil voices and leading politicians and intellectuals.

So, the question facing the people face might be whether they would like to jump from the frying pan to the fire.

Or whether there is an alternative. In the case of Madhu Shrine, the position taken by the local Church does seem to offer hopes of an alternative.

The fate of the Shrine and Statue in the context of history
On 31st March, shells again fell in the Madhu Shrine area. In addition to the damage, it intensified the fear of few priests, religious sisters and lay people who had remained there, forcing them to hide in bunkers, as I heard personally in a telephone call from the Madhu Shrine to the Mannar Bishops House. Most people in the area had fled previously. But in the face of the dangerous situation, later in the week, the priests and others remaining were compelled to flee, taking the sacred “Our Lady of Madhu” statue.

It is a regrettable that the Army Commander has publicly accused the priests of acting in the LTTE’s interests and goes on to claim that Madhu will be soon under the Security Forces control. This is inspite of the unflinching commitment of the Bishop, the Administrator of Madhu Shrine and many priests to preserve Madhu Shrine as a religious and humanitarian sanctuary distanced from both the security forces and the LTTE.

The history of blatant attacks on Churches and priests in the North is something that serves as a chilling reminder in any discussion around Madhu Shrine, which itself had been attacked several times in the past.

On 1st of April, I visited the Pesalai Catholic Church, and saw again the marks left by the grenade that was thrown inside the church and bullet holes. There is no doubt in the minds of the local people who were eyewitnesses that it was the security forces that were responsible for this, in which one elderly woman was killed and several others injured, as they took refuge in the Church, in what they considered to be a safe place. In a recent visit to India, I met several people from Mannar who had fled to India in fear as refugees, after this incident, as they realized the place they considered their last place of refuge, the Church, is not immune to attacks by security forces. The attack on Allaipiddy church, where several people laid down their life is also still fresh. I have seen many battle scarred churches in Jaffna, which still bear testimony to the attacks on them with gaping bullet holes. Security forces are also clearly implicated in the disappearance and killing of Tamil Catholic priests, Fr. Jim Brown (2006) and Fr. Mary Bastian (1985), as well as Methodist priest Rev. Jeyarajasingham, as far back as 1984. The killing of Fr. Pakiaranjith, another Tamil Catholic Priest last September, where the LTTE and the security forces exchanged blame is the most recent killing of a priest in the North. The fact that those responsible for any of these attacks have not been brought to justice is an indication of the inability or the unwillingness of the government to genuinely address critical concerns of the Church in North.

The attempts by the security forces to implicate Catholic priests in the recent incident at Thalladi Church, adjoining the military camp, where six soldiers were killed by LTTE shelling, would have given further impetus to the local church not to trust the security forces. The military made false accusations that the priests has asked soldiers to clean the church, while in reality, the priests, rightful custodians of the church, had only asked for the church be made available for religious services. In the months preceding the incident, the church had been a church only in name, as security forces had taken control of it and not allowed priests and devotees to conduct or join religious services and infact had used it as a military facility, thereby exposing it as a target. In two visits to Mannar after this incident, I and several colleagues were able to witness for ourselves that the Church was indeed occupied by the military. Even from the main road, military vehicles and personnel were clearly visible inside the church premises.

Given this history, distant and recent, it would be too much to expect the Catholics faithful and Church leaders in Mannar to take seriously the statement given by the Army Commander that security forces will not damage the Madhu Shrine and that the army would provide security for the sacred statue to be moved into areas under army control. Even if circumstances had permitted otherwise, which in reality it was not, Church leaders would have been inclined to take the sacred statue of Our Lady of Madhu away from the battle fronts and deep into the Vanni. This is in addition to the fact that in the recent months, even the Administrator of Madhu Shrine and the Bishop of Mannar had been compelled by the security forces to undertake journeys of more than 200km to travel from Madhu Shrine to Mannar, instead of the usual distance of around 50km, due to the closure of Madhu Road and Uilankulam roads by security forces. This long road is believed to be fraught with danger.

Displacement of the protector of the displaced
Our Lady of Madhu has provided refuge and protection to thousands of people fleeing from the dangers of war and destruction. Now, she herself is displaced.

Thousands, including me, have prayed at her feet for peace in our country. To protect us, our loved ones and our homes from harm. Now we are praying to Our Lady of Madhu for the safety of her own home, that it may be preserved and spared from the antics of those that hunger and thirst for political and military power.

As a Catholic, who had been to Madhu few times, I do not feel that Our Lady of Madhu would welcome liberation or protection from those who bear arms, and who have political interests, such as the LTTE and Sri Lankan security forces. What Our Lady of Madhu would want in my opinion, is to be left totally alone by the LTTE and security forces, to allow her to bring to her fold and care the thousands who seek her protection from war and destruction. And to welcome to her home the thousands who come to her in prayer in devotion, from all over the country, Sinhalese and Tamil.

This is what the Bishop of Mannar asked again in a desperate and an urgent appeal to both the government and the LTTE on 1st April. This is what around 4000 people, braving heavy military presence, rallied around and prayed for publicly in the streets of Mannar on 2nd April. State media went as far as accuse this also was done under pressure from LTTE, whereas the truth is that these were the results of a discussion the Bishop and priests of the diocese had, as news broke of the desperate situation in the Shrine area after shells had fallen again on 31st March.

I was also present at this discussion the Bishop and priests had to discuss the options of remaining and risk damaging the sacred statue and losing more lives of priests versus fleeing for safety with the statue for the first time, after surviving three decades of war. It was an agonizing discussion. On my return to Colombo, on 3rd April from Mannar, I tried in vain to contact Madhu Shrine throughout the afternoon. Later in the evening, a priest confirmed that the priests in the Shrine and others had been compelled to flee with the statue. I was sad, felt helpless, didn’t know what to say. Despite the valiant efforts of the Bishop, the priests and people of Mannar, Our Lady of Madhu who had sheltered so many displaced people, had herself become displaced. Knowing the concern the Bishop had for the safety of the Shrine, the sacred statue and his priests and flock, and having been with him just a few days ago, I could imagine his personal agony and could only offer my solidarity and prayers for this admirable and brave Church leader. I also remembered the Administrator of the Shrine, another valiant fighter for the oppressed Tamil community, who I had met only a few weeks ago.

The challenge to protect Madhu Shrine from military and political activities
Is it too late to protect the Madhu Shrine being taken over for military and political reasons? It seems so. But the Shrine itself still stands, as far as I know. So maybe it is not too late. But soon, it might be too late.

The core calls of the local church with regard to Madhu Shrine could be summed up as below:

• Both government forces and the LTTE should keep away from the Shrine area
• Both parties should refrain from using it for military and political purposes
• The Shrine should be solely and completely under the control and administration of the Church
• Madhu Shrine area should be accepted as a Zone of Peace
• The President should formally declare it as such, through a special gazette notification.

When and if this call is heeded, Our Lady of Madhu could cease to be a refugee in her own land, and will be again able to offer refuge to those seeking her protection. And people from all parts of the country, can continue to visit her abode, in prayer and devotion, devoid of political and military propaganda.

Hundreds of thousands of devotees have flocked to the Madhu Shrine in the past. Amongst them, the Church leaders and people in Mannar have come forward fearlessly to protect it from being used for military and political purposes by the LTTE and the government.

It remains to be seen, whether the people and church leaders in the south, particularly Sinhalese, who have flocked in their thousands to Madhu in the past, will rise to the challenge of preserving the Madhu Shrine and support the struggle waged by the people and church leaders in Mannar to see Our Lady of Madhu in her own adobe, devoid of political propaganda of the LTTE and the government.

Ruki Fernando
6th April 2008

• Violating the Madhu Sancuary – Some brief thoughts
• Madhu Feast 2009: Another opportunity or obstacle for peace and reconciliation?
• A narrow escape and a great tragedy
• Fr. Jim Brown and Mr. Vimalathas: Five years after disappearance, where are they and what has happened to the investigation?
• Civilian cost of a humanitarian operation: miseries of liberated peoples of Musali and Naanatan divisions in Mannar waiting to go home

The government had claimed it had “liberated” the East, completed a 180 days development program and had decided to hold elections as if to prove all is well there.

Reports from the ground seemed otherwise. The Inter Agency Standing Committee (IASC), comprising UN and NGOs active in humanitarian work, reported on their 11th February update that “armed groups continue to operate in the area”. In their previous report of 5th Feb. 2008, the IASC had reported that the “The situation remains tense and that the looting of humanitarian assistance materials is leading to delays in programme implementation, with some agencies informing that they have suspended some work due to continued loss of material.”

In a recent visit to Batticaloa with a group of friends and colleagues going to Batticaloa, I was able to see for myself, although what can be seen and heard in few days is limited, it did give me some sense of what life is like in Batticaloa.

I do not wish to enter into a debate about the how safe Batticaloa is, how the government development plans are helping the residents and how much the government is helping the displaced. There is enough news on state controlled media about these. What I hope to share is what I saw and heard, and maybe, in some places, what I feel and think about these.

Traveling to, from and around Batti
The journey to the “liberated” Batti (as I fondly call it) was not much different from my previous trips. The security forces continued to have their camps right across the main road from Welkanda to Batticaloa and we were forced to take gravel and dusty roads full of pot holes going around them. As we passed the Manampitiya checkpoint, I counted exactly 50 lorries lined up waiting to be allowed into the checkpoint going in the direction of Polonnaruwa. We were stopped at least 6 checkpoints, but except once, our bags were not checked. As before, at several check points, I saw long lines of people who had to get down from buses, with their heavy baggage. I heard from my friends who had come back by the private van we went, that the checking had been much more intensive coming back.

Me and another colleague escaped much of that, as we took the night mail train to Colombo. Our bags were checked inside the train a few times, as well as when entering the station, but we were not inconvenienced greatly. At the Batti station, I casually asked a security officer about laptops – “you will be allowed depending on your occupation” was the response. I didn’t ask him what occupations will allow people to carry laptops and what occupations will prohibit or about a law that makes such a distinction. I asked the question because three days earlier, I was prevented from boarding the Colombo – Kandy intercity express train, as I had my laptop with me.

People I met in Batticaloa, particularly a group of youth, seem to be having much harder time going out of Batticaloa. “We are subjected to intensive checking and so we don’t like to go to Colombo” was the common sentiment. I saw this to myself.

Not just going out of Batti, but within Batti town as well. Around the town, I saw people on trishaws, cycles, motor cycles and those walking being stopped at various check points. Many people told that checkpoints had increased in the recent past. One boy who I met told that he had been stopped at 7 checkpoints in an 8km journey.

Waiting to go home, with no food, shelter, jobs
During our visit, I took some time to meet several displaced people. UNHCR had reported that 7,038 families and 26,484 people still remain displaced in Batticaloa district, at the end of January 2008. The IASC had reported 19 IDP camps within the district in their report of 5th February.

Lakshmi had been displaced in April 2006 from the Trincomalee district. She and her family had stayed in camps and with relatives in Vakarai and Batti. She is still in a camp. “We don’t get enough food, leave, and its so hot in these tents during day time” she told me. “It’s very difficult to find work around Baticaloa. We had land and cattle, so we want to go back, to live without being dependent on NGOs and foreigners. If we are allowed to go back to our own lands, we can look after our own children” was what Rajan, who is also from the Trincomalee district told me. “Various people tell us that we can go back at the end of the month, some say before the elections on 10th March, but we still don’t know when they (meaning the government) will allow us to go” was what another person told me.

Certainly, no one had asked these displaced people about their aspirations about going back, neither had any “go and see visits” been arranged, despite concerns about the property such as houses, household items, cattle etc, that people had been compelled to leave behind as they fled.

The IASC had reported on 5th February that “No official dates have been established for further returns within Batticaloa District or to Trincomalee District and that returns to Mylavadduvan in Chenkalady Division (approximately 140 families) are expected to occur within the next two weeks”

Some had heard that they will never be able to go back to their farms and houses as the government has taken over their land for a high security zone. “We heard that we will be forcible resettled in another place even if we don’t want” one farmer told me. “We have no idea where we will be sent. If the government is taking over our land, will they at least allow us to go and get our cattle back?” asked another. I inquired whether they had been consulted about when and where they would like to be resettled and what kind of compensation they would get – no one I met had been consulted at all.

All these are clear violations of the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement.

I visited a camp in Sathorokondan, where 146 families and 495 people were living in tents, on the sand. A camp officer told me that there was no government assistance. WFP still provides basic rations like rice, dhal, oil and sugar, but I was told it is insufficient. “We don’t know when we can give fish or fresh vegetables to our children” lamented one mother. An NGO, that had been providing items like bread, canned fish etc. had stopped these some time back, saying that they had no more funding.

Arul was a farmer who had fled as security forces on advanced on areas then controlled by the LTTE. He is from Pattipalai, in the Batticaloa district. He told us that they are still not allowed to go back to their own places, despite the “liberation”. “some of us are allowed to go between 9am – 5pm, with a special pass issued by the security forces, but sometimes, they don’t allow youth” he told us. “But even then, we are not allowed to farm, we can just collect milk from my cows and then have to carry them back”

I asked some of these displaced people how they had benefited from the “Nagenahira Navodaya” (Eastern reawakening). “What is that?” was the standard response. No one had heard about it. I didn’t have the heart to tell them about the massive tamashas in Colombo held in their name, celebrating their “liberation”, promising them prosperity, development, security.

Someone asked me, “Can you help us to go home soon?” “Do you have friends who can help us” was another question. I said I don’t know. I truly don’t know. I know that few of my friends do care. But I also know that many more don’t care at all. And that several friends consider me a fanatic, a Sinhalese tiger, a terrorist sympathizer for talking about such stories on and on. “Why doesn’t the government send us home?” was another question. Again, I said I don’t know.

I wondered whether I should ever talk with displaced people again. How can I answer their questions?

As usual, I got away promising to tell the rest of Sri Lanka and the world their stories. But I wondered then and I wonder now as I write ….who will hear and who will care?

Waiting for their loves ones-the families of the disappeared and abducted
Amongst women I met in Batti this time was a mother whose 20 year old son has been abducted, on 20th Feb. 2007. With tears streaming down her eyes, she described how she had been in a bus, which was stopped, and three young men, including her son was abducted. She had identified some of the abductors and was sure they were from the TMVP. Since then, her routine had consisted of going to various TMVP offices in Chenkalady, Batticaloa, Valachenai etc. Each office was telling her to go to another office. They had not denied the abduction of the son.

“I’m not even asking them to release my son. All I want is to know where he is, and be able to see that he is well” she told me.

She is of course only one mother. I know many others are waiting to see their loved ones, or hear some news about them. Others are hoping that they would eventually come back. Few weeks before, I had been asked by a friend in Batti to help find a safe place for a 21 year old boy who had run away from the TMVP after being abducted. In January, 5 cases of underage recruitment by the TMVP (3 cases of recruitment and 2 re-recruitment) have been reported by the UNICEF for January 2008.

“Can you help me to find my son? Or do you know anyone who can?” she asked me as I tried to take my leave. I don’t have an answer. She had already complained to the Human Rights Commission and the ICRC. Also to several NGOs. What could I do? I couldn’t even think of something to tell that would give hope to this crying mother.

Sexual harassment
One woman we met told our group that she had heard of 6 rape cases in January – February 2008. She said security forces were responsible for 5 of them. Due to the stigma attached by society to girls and women who become victims of rape, as well as the fear of reprisals, the victims had opted not to complain and speak out. Several others we met also spoke of cases of rape. I’m not sure whether they were referring to the same cases or there were more.

I also heard of sexual harassment, including at check points. The Buddhist Monk I met in Batticaloa shared with me how he had seen a young women been body checked and “massaged” all over by a Policemen at a check point close to the city. He had been outraged, he still sounded outraged as he described it. He had complained to the Police on this, and was asked by a senior police officer, “Why are you worried about these? These are Tamils”

Restricting freedom of movement
Many years ago, I had been to some places in the West Batticaloa during the times these areas were controlled by the LTTE. But last year, in the wake of the “liberation” of these areas by security forces, and as thousands of people were being resettled (some of them forcibly), I had tried to go with some aid workers and media. We had been refused permission for “security reasons”. So I was keen to go and visit these areas, including a Catholic shrine I had been to before.

But everyone I asked told me that I would not be allowed to go. That ordinary people are not allowed to go, and that I needed to have a “reason” to go there. The fact that it is an area in my country that I liked to visit would not suffice. (Well, at least I felt I was not alone in this, as I know many Tamil friends who are only expected to visit Colombo if they have a “reason”, and in case of Jaffna, only given permission if that reason is seen as justified by the military)

“Staff of all agencies who provide much needed assistance to newly resettled people also have to get permission from security forces to visit these areas” a friend working in a NGO told me. When I asked whether they could take me along, the answer was no. I also heard that no independent media personnel were allowed to visit these areas.

And now, elections…armed groups turning into political parties
Most people I met around Batti don’t seem to be interested in the elections. They don’t seem to have much choice in selecting candidates, which an election is all about. The main parties contesting are the TMVP (together with ruling government UPFA for the Batticaloa municipality) and EPDP-EPRLF-PLOTE. The SLMC is also contesting some local bodies.

The main opposition party, the UNP, and the party that has the largest representation in parliament from the area, the TNA, have decided not to contest the elections, citing security fears of candidates and supporters. I certainly don’t want to justify their reasons and advocate election boycotts by political parties. But the result is the people in the area are deprived of options of who to vote.

I heard of leaflets by the LTTE, warning candidates not to contest. The LTTE is notorious for annihilating Tamil groups and leaders (amongst others) who have dissenting and even different views from them, and the government track record in protecting such people has been woeful. So what would any candidates do?

The period before nominations had seen violence. For the first time in my memory, people killed, threatened for refusing to stand as nominee. (In past elections, it had been the other way around!). The main accusations in this regard were being leveled at the TMVP, who it seems didn’t have in its ranks people who would command respect and confidence of the population and get votes of the electorate. But they still wanted to be in power, so resorted to coercing people they thought would command some respect and confidence to stand for elections under their banner. The more prominent people in society had withstood these intimidations and refused to stand. One had been killed. Some not so prominent people had consented. They are now being provided two Police guards. We heard the story of one candidate, a fishermen, who now sells fish in the market with two Police guards. I heard that many of the candidates are people who actually don’t have any experience or education in managing local councils if they are elected.

And more than these, there was skepticism that a militant group, namely TMVP, who still have arms, and whose former leader is on the verge of facing charges of war crimes in England, has overnight had a change of heart and entered into the democratic mainstream, in alliance with the present government. “The government may have forced them to put their arms in the cupboards in the few weeks leading upto the election, but the cupboards will open after elections” one religious leader told me. “The government says that it wont even talk to the LTTE without disarming, but has no qualms about entering into an electoral alliance with a group that still admits to having arms” he added.

Another activist asked how a group who has forcibly recruited many youth, including under age recruits can stand for elections. “If they are genuine about entering democratic politics, why can’t they release all their forced recruits, especially children? Why wait for after elections” he questioned. I heard that TMVP had told some people whose children and relatives had been forcibly recruited that they would be released if they voted for them. We heard the story of at least one brave women who responded to that saying “Return my husband you abducted before you ask for my vote”

The majority of the parties seem to be government allies. “In house election” was how one friend described the election.

As I was in Batti, media reported that there have been an increasing number of violent incidents against SLMC candidates by the Sri Lanka government parties, especially in Valachcheanai area. SLMC leaders had complained that its supporters were attacked and three shops were set on fire. Three houses were damaged, five candidates were attacked, and a house of a candidate was bombed and though complaints have been made to the law enforcement authorities, no action has been taken.

Since coming back to Colombo, I read a media report that a meeting convened at a temple in Batti had been taken over by a government minister and the TMVP to be used as a platform for the TMVP’s election campaign.

Before this, the Centre for Monitoring of Election Monitoring (CMEV) had pointed out that “paramilitary activity, reports of abduction, extra-judicial execution, intimidation and extortion attributed to ‘unidentified armed men’ and the inability of the law enforcement agencies to pursue investigations in these cases have all created an environment of fear and insecurity in the District”, citing specific cases directed against several parties, including the UPFA. PAFFREL, another election monitoring body who has already undertaken monitoring in this election, noted in its preliminary report that “It is possible that violence and election malpractices will surface as the election campaign gathers momentum, as the armed groups have not been disarmed” and that “The presence of armed TMVP cadres in particular has been as a serious threat to the prospects of free and fair elections.”

However, PAFFREL election monitors I met, as well as their reports through the media, also claim that the level of violence in Batti has gone down in the last few weeks. They even claimed that the level of violence in this election was less than other elections in Sri Lanka. They also argue that militant groups like TMVP, may rely less on weapons if they have legitimate political power.

I sincerely hope so. But from what I heard, not many Batti residents are hopeful as the monitors. Who might know better?

In my view, from what has happened so far, the election can never be free and fair. Even if there is zero violence from today onwards, on the day of the elections and after the elections.

Hoping for better times in the land of the singing fish
As an outsider who is not from Batti, but deeply fascinated by the people of Batti and its natural beauty, I yearn to hear the sounds of the singing fish again, instead of the desperate cries of its people.

In my last trip, for a change, I was glad not to hear sounds of shelling and gun fire. I hope and hope this is not“calm before the storm”.

I was also glad to hear from many friends that the security forces, the police and even the armed TMVP seemed to be behaving better in the last few days. And that the TMVP doesn’t flaunt arms in the open these days. This certainly was the first time since 2007 that I didn’t see any boys as tall as the guns they carry, out in the open, including next to security forces camps.

But it is clear that that this election is something Batti people don’t want right now. This is not because they don’t believe in democracy and elections. Indeed, they have been clamoring for true democracy for years, often at great risks. Even during times the oppression by armed groups such as the IPKF, Sri Lankan security forces and the LTTE was at its peak. So, I believe they badly want democracy and know better than many others what a free and fair election entails, with particular reference to the situation in Batticaloa.

From what I saw and heard, what people in Batti yearn for right now, is not an election, but for:

• An end to the culture of arms and weapons – particularly the immediate disarming of armed groups, including government’s election ally TMVP
• Immediate addressing of humanitarian issues – adequate assistance to people displaced, both from within the Batti district and outside like Trinco district, and voluntary and dignified resettlement, in consultation with displaced people, including “go and see visits”

Ruki Fernando
20th Feb. 2008

Note: Names have been changed at the request of people concerned, to ensure their safety

• Alliance Of Parties In The East?
• TMVP Protest In Batticaloa Today
• Vanni displaced: when will they be free from clutches of tigers and lions?
• Civilian cost of a humanitarian operation: miseries of liberated peoples of Musali and Naanatan divisions in Mannar waiting to go home
• Eastern elections

For a Sinhala version of this video, please click here. For more videos, please visit the Vikalpa YouTube Channel.

• Current ground situation in Mannar, Sri Lanka
• Claymore attack against bus in Katubadda: Video and interviews
• Shanthi Sachithanandan on July 1983
• Prabakaran’s Role in Tamil National Struggle: Interview with Shanthi Sachithanandan
• Interview with Mano Ganeshan on abductions of Tamils in Colombo