Category: News

Sri Lankan Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa’s announcement last week that the government would stop the forced cremation of people who died with Covid-19 appeared to end a policy that had cruelly denied Muslims their religious rights. The government has contended without any medical basis that burial in accordance with Islamic tradition poses a public health risk.

But despite the pledge, the government has continued to forcibly cremate Muslims and is backtracking by claiming the policy can only be changed following deliberations by an expert committee.

On February 11, the day after Mahinda Rajapaksa’s announcement supposedly ending the ban, Mohamed Kamaldeen Mohamed Sameem was cremated in Anamaduwa. Friends of the 40-year-old social activist say authorities initially claimed he committed suicide, but later changed the cause of death to Covid-19 and hastily cremated the body. In another case, the family of a 26-year-old physiotherapist who reportedly died suddenly in his sleep have asked the Court of Appeal to prevent a cremation after hospital authorities announced he died with Covid-19.

The cremations policy has caused intense distress to Muslims since it was implemented in March 2020. Frequently, the authorities proceed with the cremation even while families question the diagnosis and request further checks. World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines say there is no medical justification for insisting on cremation, and a committee of Sri Lankan medical experts have called for an end to the policy. It has been condemned by UN rights experts, and by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

Among those who applauded the initial announcement was Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan, who is due to visit Sri Lanka on February 22. Sri Lanka is anxious to have the support of Pakistan, an OIC member, at the upcoming session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, which begins in Geneva the same day. The council is expected to consider a new resolution responding to mounting rights concerns in Sri Lanka, including over the treatment of Muslims. The government’s evident lack of empathy in addressing the heartfelt concerns of Muslims regarding forced cremations is further evidence of the need for Human Rights Council action on Sri Lanka.

Minister of Energy Udaya Gammanpila claims Sri Lanka will be able to acquire the oil tanks in Trincomalee from India, in the near future.

Speaking during an event in Kolonnawa today, Minister Gammanpila said discussions with the Indian High Commission pertaining to reacquiring the oil tanks, have been successful.

He said they forwarded several concerns raised by employees, trade unions and other stakeholders to India.

The Minister said the Indian High Commission agreed to all conditions forwarded by them.

Minister Gammanpila added that the oil tanks have not been utilised since the second world war, and they are eager to develop them.

He said since a majority of the ships that use the Trincomalee seas are from India, they will be working with the Indian Oil Company to utilise the oil storages.

The Minister said the oil tanks in Trincomalee will become a major foreign exchange revenue earner in the near future.

Prof Rohan Gunaratna has long been a confidant of Gotabaya Rajapaksa. It is a relationship that goes back at least to the second-term of MR, though the latter did not give him the access to, let alone influence in the policy making process, especially the foreign-policy making process, that the (then) Secretary/Defense had suggested.

In 2018, Gotabaya Rajapaksa held a very successful second annual convention of the Viyathmaga at the Shangri-la hotel. Prof Gunaratna was the key speaker on foreign policy.

Given that relations with India are in a fluid situation, Tamil politics including in Tamil Nadu are at an inflection point, and the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) is facing a challenge in Geneva, it is of quite considerable importance to read the collective mind of the Gotabaya regime, through the recent statement of Prof Rohan Gunaratna, in a Sunday Observer interview of February 14th 2021.

Let me reproduce the relevant section in extenso and then take a closer look at it.

“…The background to the Accord was India providing sanctuary, financing, arming, training, and directing the LTTE. With India compelling Sri Lanka to sign the Accord, the government faced an insurrection in the south. The unhappiness was reflected when a naval rating hit Rajiv Gandhi nearly assassinating him.

The LTTE assassinated Gandhi after returning to violence having reneged on the Agreement. The reality in Sri Lanka is that any Government devolving powers to the North and East will be toppled. The historical experience is that devolution of power to the provinces will be exploited by the separatists to secede.

Tamil politicians both TNA and others are not trusted. They are either associated with the LTTE international network or with India. In February 2016, the Chief Minister of Sri Lanka’s Northern Province, C.V. Wigneswaran sought India’s direct intervention in the complete implementation of the Amendment.

Having suffered from Indian covert assistance to the LTTE and five other terrorist groups, Sri Lankans detested Indian intervention. Although India is unlikely to rearm the LTTE, Sri Lankans are suspicious of Indian designs especially, in the north and the east.

Increasingly, an opinion is building in Sri Lanka to abrogate the 13th Amendment along the lines of India revoking the special status, or limited autonomy, granted under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir—a region administered by India as a state which consists of the larger part of Kashmir and which has been the subject of dispute among India, Pakistan, and China since 1947.

On August 5, 2019, the Government of India, cut off communication lines in the Kashmir Valley, a region gripped by a prolonged separatist terrorism and insurgency. Kashmiri politicians were taken into custody, including the former chief minister.

The Government is aware of the LTTE planning to harness the political freedoms in the north and the east and subvert the Tamil community. If there is a revival of the LTTE, the Sri Lankan Government will not hesitate to move in this direction.

The current strategy by the separatists is to masquerade as human rights activists and provoke Government overreaction. As such, the Government did not respond decisively to the P2P protest. However, having witnessed the detrimental impact of the protest, the Government will no longer permit a similar episode as it compromises the hard-won stability and security.

The Government is also aware of the LTTE working both on the political and terrorist fronts. In addition to plotting intermittent attacks, the LTTE network overseas is building a support infrastructure in the north and the east.

After the military defeat of the LTTE in May 2009, Sri Lankans are unwilling to devolve land, police and financial powers to the provinces. The structure implemented in the North and the East should be acceptable to all parts of the country.”

(Permitting religious cults is dangerous – Prof. Gunaratna | Sunday Observer)

Unpacked, what does this mean?

“…The background to the Accord was India providing sanctuary, financing, arming, training, and directing the LTTE…”

That is only partly true. “The background to the sanctuary, financing, arming, training and directing the LTTE” was the anti-Tamil pogrom of July’83, of which Prof Gunaratna makes no mention here. As for “directing the LTTE”, any Tamil belonging to the senior generation of the armed movement knows that the LTTE was the organization that received the least Indian training and was least penetrated by, let alone directed by India, if only because Prabhakaran was very careful not to permit it. This is why the IPKF knew little about the LTTE because the RAW had no control over it and not as much actual knowledge of its workings as it thought. Prabhakaran wiped out the TELO in 1986, accusing it of being India’s proxy. In short, India and the LTTE were not on a continuum as Prof Gunaratna implies.

“The reality in Sri Lanka is that any Government devolving powers to the North and East will be toppled.”

This is untrue. Governments not only devolved power but had an elected Provincial Council in the North and East and was not toppled. Certainly, Mahinda Rajapaksa was not defeated electorally for that reason. It is true that an excess of devolution would topple a government, which is what happened with Yahapalanaya and the new post-unitary Constitution project.

But that is not what Rohan Gunaratna says. He says “any government devolving powers…” This means any degree of devolution is taboo. This clearly means that the Gotabaya Rajapaksa Presidency will not devolve power to the Northern and Eastern Provincial Councils. Prof Gunaratna clearly does not care how this may play in Chennai and Delhi. He obviously discounts the question as to whether a government should risk the blowback.

He then says “The historical experience is that devolution of power to the provinces will be exploited by the separatists to secede.” What? Where? When? Whom? He does not say. The bulk of the evidence, from Canada through Switzerland to India and South Africa, is to the contrary. In most cases, secession is deterred or deferred precisely by the devolution of power. What matters though is that this line, by itself or taken together with one that preceded it, tells us and the world that any kind of devolution to the provinces is ruled out by the Gotabaya camp.

Prof. Gunaratna tars the TNA and Tamil politicians. “Tamil politicians both TNA and others are not trusted. They are either associated with the LTTE international network or with India.” This means that in the collective mind of the GR camp, being “associated with the LTTE international network” is on the same footing as being associated “with India”. This is indicative that India is seen as an enemy, just as is the LTTE.

This also means that in the minds of the GR camp’s thinkers, Sampanthan, Sumanthiran, Rasamanikkam etc. are not legitimate players because they are hooked up with either the LTTE or India.

What this really means is that there will be no political process, no political negotiation, no political dialogue, still less political settlement, with the TNA or Tamil politicians, so long as the GR regime is in power—because there are no legitimate interlocutors on the Tamil side.

One notes that Prof Gunaratna does not mention as exceptions, Douglas Devananda, Karuna Amman or Pillaiyan, despite the fact that they are allies of the government. Is it because none of them are willing to renounce the principle of devolution, the 13th amendment and the Indo-Lanka Accord?

Prof. Gunaratna gives a clear signal as to what comes next. “Increasingly, an opinion is building in Sri Lanka to abrogate the 13th Amendment along the lines of India revoking the special status, or limited autonomy, granted under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir…”

So, the new Constitution that the Gotabaya regime is drafting will unilaterally slash the 13th amendment and reduce the quantum of devolution, if any power is devolved. This may not await a new Constitution. The regime may move an amendment in Parliament which will probably secure a two-thirds majority, and if the courts hold that a referendum is necessary, carry the referendum too.

Prof. Gunaratna makes amply clear that another P2P will not be permitted and that if it is repeated or anything like it undertaken, the regime will crack down hard:

“Kashmiri politicians were taken into custody, including the former chief minister. The Government is aware of the LTTE planning to harness the political freedoms in the north and the east and subvert the Tamil community. If there is a revival of the LTTE, the Sri Lankan Government will not hesitate to move in this direction. The current strategy by the separatists is to masquerade as human rights activists and provoke Government overreaction. As such, the Government did not respond decisively to the P2P protest. However, having witnessed the detrimental impact of the protest, the Government will no longer permit a similar episode as it compromises the hard-won stability and security.”

In short, there will no longer be space for peaceful civic protest. If undertaken it will be met with repression.

Either the regime does not care that this may trigger violent protest if not revive terrorism, or it is hopeful that it will!

Prof Rohan Gunaratna’s bottom-line can be credibly taken as the Gotabaya presidency’s bottom-line: “After the military defeat of the LTTE in May 2009, Sri Lankans are unwilling to devolve land, police and financial powers to the provinces.”

Police powers are controversial and can be introduced in phases, linked to the behavior of the Provincial Council, but what meaning can devolution possibly have without some substantive measure of the devolution of land and financial powers to the provinces?

Since the 13th amendment already devolves such powers to the provinces, does Gunaratna’s disclosure not indicate that these powers will be revoked? If they are, what will remain as the residue?

Is this not unilateralism, given that a bilateral accord, whatever its historical context, exists, as guarantee of such devolution?

What will be the response of the Tamils, India and the world community at large?

The principal of a Madrasa School has been arrested over links to Attorney-at-Law Hejaaz Hizbullah.

Attorney General Dappula de Livera had earlier directed Inspector General of Police (IGP) C.D Wickremeratne to report facts and produce the Principal of the Madrasa School, Mohammed Shakeel before the relevant Magistrate’s Court for allegedly abetting Hejaaz Hizbullah on charges under section 2 (1) (h) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and section 3(1) of the ICCPR Act.

Accordingly, the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) arrested Mohammed Shakeel.

Earlier today, the AG directed the IGP to report facts on the case linked to detained human rights activist and Attorney-at-Law Hejaaz Hizbullah.

The AG’s Coordinating Officer State Counsel Nishara Jayaratne told Colombo Gazette that IGP C. D. Wickremeratne was further directed to produce Hizbullah before the relevant Magistrate’s Court.

Hizbullah will be presented in Court on charges filed under Section 2(1) (h) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and Section 3(1) of the International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights (ICCPR) Act.

The human rights lawyer has been held at the Criminal Investigation Department headquarters in Colombo since his arrest on 14 April 2020, with restricted access to his lawyers, family and wife.

Hizbullah was arrested on charges of allegedly “aiding and abetting” one of the bombers involved in the 2019 Easter Sunday terror attacks.

Many, including the European Union, Amnesty International, and nearly 150 lawyers in Sri Lanka had raised concerns over Hejaaz Hizbullah’s detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act without sufficient evidence.

Last month, Attorney General Dappula de Livera had agreed to grant Hizbullah access to his lawyers.

The temporary travel restriction introduced by the Government on travels originating from the United Kingdom to Sri Lanka, on account of the new Covid -19 Variant in the UK, has been lifted with immediate effect.

At a meeting presided by the President, it was decided to relax the restrictions on travels from UK subject to 14 days of quarantine and PCR tests determined by the Health Authorities, the Foreign Ministry said.

The tourist arrivals from the UK too will resume under the guidelines introduced by the Sri Lanka Tourism Promotion Bureau, the statement said.

Former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga says the country that former leaders including her built by sacrificing themselves, is now on a decline.

Speaking to media at the monument of the Former President’s husband the late Vijaya Kumaratunga to mark his 33rd death anniversary, the Former President said one can only laugh at the country’s present status.

She charged that Sri Lanka will never move forward, adding that what was once built in Sri Lanka has been destroyed.

The Former President added young, educated and corruption free politics is required in the country where public representatives are not dependant on the country.

Kumaratunga claimed that foreign relations have ruined the country and charged that Sri Lanka has been invaded by China.

While stating she has no anger towards China, she rued that everything in the country has been vested with China.

Sri Lanka has cancelled Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan’s address to the Parliament, scheduled for February 24, citing COVID-19 constraints. Khan is set to arrive in Colombo for a two-day visit on February 22.

Foreign Secretary Adm. Prof. Jayanath Colombage said Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena had written to the government, seeking a postponement of the event, saying that due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the virus variant, which has appeared in various parts of Colombo, he is unable to ensure full attendance in Parliament on the occasion.

According to Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena, the government had agreed to a request by the Pakistan Prime Minister to address the Sri Lankan Parliament, and decided the address would be made on February 24. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had addressed the Sri Lankan Parliament in March 2015.

According to unofficial but reliable sources, sections of the government had reservations about the decision to have the Pakistan Prime Minister address the Sri Lankan Parliament as it could sour relations with India. The sources believe India might apprehend the Pakistani leader would raise the Kashmir issue in his address.

Traditionally, the Sri Lankan government has been avoiding the Kashmir issue in deference to India’s sensitivity over the matter. But for Pakistan, the Kashmir issue has been the most important one, the fulcrum of the country’s foreign policy, as it were. If Imran Khan were to raise the issue in the Sri Lankan Parliament it would get him brownie points back home.

By seeking an opportunity to speak in the Sri Lankan Parliament, Imran Khan could also achieve parity with his regional rival, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. But India might demur if Colombo were to equate it with Pakistan.

India-Sri Lanka relations are a bit fragile now, as India is nursing a wound inflicted on it by the sudden cancellation of a deal over the East Container Terminal in Colombo port.

According to an English language daily, the Pakistani Prime Minister is coming to Sri Lanka to strengthen ties with the only South Asian nation with which it has consistently close and good ties. It is undeniable that Sri Lanka-Pakistan relations have been cordial and strong right from the late 1940s when both got independence from Britain.

The All Ceylon Muslim League (ACML), headed by the renowned Muslim leader, the Late, T. B. Jaya, had been a firm supporter of the Pakistan movement through the 1940s. As the ACML was an ally of the then dominant United National Party (UNP), T.B. Jaya was sent to Pakistan as Ceylon’s envoy.

In the 1950s, both Ceylon and Pakistan were in the anti-communist US-led camp. The relationship remained strong even when Ceylon changed its political colour and became pro-Soviet and pro-Beijing during the premiership of Sirimavo Bandaranaike. In fact, Ceylon under Sirimavo Bandaranaike allowed Pakistani military aircraft to refuel in Colombo 174 times during the Bangladesh freedom struggle, when India had banned Pakistani aircraft from flying over its territory. To the latter’s surprise and dismay, Colombo ignored New Delhi’s objections.

Later, in the 1990s, when the West, as well as India, refused to sell or supply weapons to Sri Lanka to fight Tamil separatism and terrorism because they supported the Tamil minority’s political demands or were sympathetic to their plight from the human rights angle, Pakistan stepped into the breach and supplied much needed weaponry. Pakistan’s support had also come at some of the most critical junctures during the war. Pakistani pilots were on hand to advise the Sri Lankan Air Force, which had shifted to the offensive mode for the first time.

Pakistan (along with China and Russia) has been consistently and strongly supporting the Sri Lankan government in international forums on the issue of terrorism and separatism. It has consistently rejected the Western countries’ charge that the Lankan forces had committed “war crimes”.

Sri Lanka is eagerly waiting for Pakistan’s help to garner the support of Muslim countries in the 47-member UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in which a hostile resolution against it is likely to be introduced in March. The resolution is expected to call for Sri Lanka’s reference to the International Criminal Court at The Hague.

Pakistan and India are both members of the UNHRC and both can help Sri Lanka fight its case. As a result, Sri Lanka has to humour both, a delicate task.